Skip to main content

Full text of "Tri Laterals Over America by Antony C. Sutton.pdf (PDFy mirror)"

See other formats

By Antony Sutton 



ONE What is the Trilateral Commission? 1 

TWO Membership of the Trilateral Commission 1 1 

THREE New World Order as the Objective 27 

FOUR Policies for Monopoly Control 35 

FIVE Two Decades of Trilateral 

Scheming in Agriculture 49 

SIX Trilateral Don't Like Taxation. . . 

For Themselves 61 

SEVEN Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace 75 

EIGHT Politics of New World Order 91 

NINE Friends of the New World Order 101 

TEN Transcending Marxism: 

Old and New Marxists 107 

ELEVEN Where the Trilateral Commission 

Went Wrong 119 

TWELVE Conclusions: A More Likely 

Future Scenario 127 


A Membership October 1978 and July 1993 . . 131 

B Officers and Directors of 

Council on Foreign Relations 142 

C Statement by Colonel "Bo" Gritz 

on Drug Policy 157 


The Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973 by New York 
banker David Rockefeller, then Chairman of Chase Manhat- 
tan Bank, and Harvard University academic Zbignieuw 
Brzezinski, later to become National Security Assistant to 
President Jimmy Carter. 

What it is depends on one's viewpoint. According to the 
Trilateral Commission itself: 

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by pri- 
vate citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North 
America to foster closer cooperation among these three 
regions on common problems. It seeks to improve public 
understanding of such problems, to support proposals 
for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and prac- 
tices of working together among these regions. 

However, in populist political circles the Trilateral Commis- 
sion is a transparent device to achieve New World Order, 
which sound suspiciously like other dictatorial "World 
Orders." From this viewpoint Trilateral are enemies of 
freedom and intent on gaining a monopoly of world political 
power for their own benefit. 

Twenty years ago the Trilateral Commission had very little 
history; one could not track its intentions from its actions. 

Today, in 1994, one can look at 20 years of Trilateral history 
and more accurately assess their objectives in the light of 
past political actions and member appointments to various 

The original 1972 membership chosen by Rockefeller and 
Brzezinski comprised about 200 members worldwide of whom 
about one-third were North Americans, one-third Europeans 
and one-third Japanese. In 1993 this had expanded to about 
325 members worldwide, termed "distinguished citizens" by 
the Trilateral Commission but in fact representing an 
extremely narrow spectrum of world opinion and culture and 
completely unelected or representative of anything but David 
Rockefeller's personal views. 

From the start the Commission has been termed "private" 
and "unofficial" with the stated objective to "draw together 
the highest level unofficial group possible to look together at 
the common problems facing our three areas" and to "foster 

Throughout Trilateral Commission's reporting one finds a 
consistent confusion between "private" and "public." The 
Commission is promoted as a private group founded by a 
private citizen. David Rockefeller. Yet its objectives and 
operations are public policy oriented. 

In the words of the Trilateral Commission: 

The full Commission gathers once each year — in 
Lisbon in 1992, in Washington in 1993, in Tokyo in 1994. 
In addition to special topical sessions and reviews of 
current developments in our regions, a substantial 
portion of each annual meeting is devoted to considera- 
tion of draft reports to the Commission. These reports 
are generally the joint product of authors from each of 
the three regions who draw on a range of consultants in 
the course of their work. Publication follows discussion 
in the Commission's annual meeting. The authors are 
solely responsible for their final text. A separate 
publication contains the principal presentations at the 
annual meeting. Occasionally informal papers appear 
from regional activities. 


Each regional group has a Chairman and Deputy 
Chairman, who all together constitute the leadership of 
the Commission. The Executive Committee draws 
together a further 36 individuals from the wider 

In brief, this group of private citizens is precisely organized 
in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant 
impact on public policy. They meet, they review, they discuss, 
they report and after this discussion make their recommenda- 
tions public. 

For what purpose? The Trilateral Commission would 
hardly expend all this energy and funding for an academic 
exercise. . the objective has to be to establish public policy 
objectives to be implemented by governments worldwide. 

Further, the members are not elected. . they are chosen. 
The Chairman of the Executive Committee, the committee 
that chooses members, is David Rockefeller, who is also 
founder and Chairman of the overall Trilateral Commission. 
The entire structure reflects Rockefeller choices, not impartial 
or representative choices. 

This phenomenon of a David Rockefeller front organization 
has not been lost on observers. On July 27,1979, radio station 
KLMG, Council Bluffs, Iowa, ran an interview of George 
Franklin, then Coordinator of the Trilateral Commission. 
This author was a guest on the program. Here from the 
transcript is how Franklin answered the question of 
Rockefeller influence. 

COMMENTATOR: Why is it, in the Trilateral Commission 
that the name David Rockefeller shows up so persis- 
tently, or [the name of] one of his organizations? 

FRANKLIN: Well, this is very reasonable. David Rocke- 
feller is the Chairman of the North American group. 
There are three chairmen: one is [with] the North 
American group, one is [with] the Japanese group, and 
one is [with] the European group. Also, the Commission 
was really David Rockefeller's original idea. 


Franklin is aware of the Rockefeller criticism and tries to pass 
it off as unimportant, as "reasonable." The fact that Rocke- 
feller is personally involved with member selection suggests 
that the Commission was formed to advance family or 
personal objectives. If not, then Rockefeller would have 
allowed others to make such choices. 

The commentator then switches the discussion to the then 
current Carter Administration, in which co-founder 
Zbignieuw Brzezinski is National Security adviser to Carter 
and numerous other Trilaterals had been appointed. 
COMMENTATOR: On President Carter's staff, how many 
Trilateral Commission members do you have? 

Franklin: Eighteen. 

COMMENTATOR: Don't you think that is rather heavy? 
Franklin: It is quite a lot, yes. 

COMMENTATOR: Don't you think it is rather unusual? 
How many members are there actually in the Trilateral 

FRANKLIN: We have 77 in the United States? 

COMMENTATOR: Don't you think it is rather unusual to 
have 1 8 members on the Carter staff? 

FRANKLIN: Yes, I think we chose some very able people 
when we started the Commission. The President 
happens to think well of quite a number of them. 

This author then pursued with Franklin the question of mem- 
bership choice and Rockefeller influence. Franklin denies the 
obvious. It is obvious to any reasonable person that the Tri- 
lateral Commission is a Rockefeller organization formed to 
advance his interest and that it most certainly has significant 
influence. Influence is the raison d'etre for the Trilateral 

SUTTON: Do you believe that the only able people in the 
United States are Trilateralists? 
Franklin: Of course not. 

FRANKLIN: Well, when we started to choose members, we 


did try to pick out the ablest people we could and I think 
many of those that are in the Carter Administration 
would have been chosen by any group that was inter- 
ested in the foreign policy question. 

SUTTON: Would you say that you have an undue influ- 
ence on policy in the United States? 

Franklin: I would not, no. 

SUTTON: I think any reasonable man would say that if 
you have 18 Trilateralists out of 77 in the Carter Admini- 
stration you have a preponderant influence. 
FRANKLIN: These men are not responsive to anything 
that the Trilateral Commission might advocate. We do 
have about two reports we put out each year and we do 
hope they have some influence or we would not put them 

SUTTON: May I ask another question? 

SUTTON: Who financed the Trilateral Commission 

FRANKLIN: Uhh. . . The first supporter of all was a 
foundation called the Kettering Foundation. I can tell 
you who is financing it at the present time, which might 
be of more interest to you. 

SUTTON: Is it not the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund? 

FRANKLIN: The Rockefeller Brothers' Fund? The North 
American end of the Commission needs $1.5 million over 
the next three years. Of this amount, $180,000 will be 
contributed by the Rockefeller Brothers' Fund and 
$150,000 by David Rockefeller. 

COMMENTATOR: Does that mean that most of it is being 
financed by the Rockefellers? 

FRANKLIN: No, it means that about one-fifth of the North 
American end is being financed by the Rockefellers and 
none of the European and Japanese end 

Moreover, the Rockefeller family had long-standing interests 


in several public policy organizations of highly significant 
influence. The Trilateral Commission only extended the work 
and influence of the Council on Foreign Relations chaired for 
many years by the self-same David Rockefeller. 

Another Rockefeller family-sponsored and financed group 
was the Commission on Critical Choices whose task was to 
identify the "critical choices" facing the United States at the 
turn of the 21st Century. Once again we have a commission 
appointed by the Rockefellers, to decide what is best for all 

The Commission on Critical Choices For Americans 
is a nationally representative, bipartisan group of 42 
prominent Americans, brought together under the chair- 
manship of Nelson A. Rockefeller. Their assignment: To 
identify the critical choices which will confront America 
as it embarks on its third century as a nation and to 
determine the realistic and desirable objectives this 
nation can achieve by 1895 and the year 2000. 

The Commission was established in the American tra- 
dition of voluntary effort. It is 42 citizens who have 
joined together to help determine the facts about the 
future of America. 

Because of the complexity and interdependence of 
issues facing the world today, the Commission organ- 
ized its work into six study panels, which emphasize the 
interrelationships of the critical choices rather than 
studying each one separately. 

The six study panels are: 

Panel I — Energy and Its Relationship to Ecology, 
Economics and World Stability; 

Panel II — Food, Health, World Population and 
Quality of Life; 

Panel III — Raw Materials, Industrial Development, 
Capital Formation, Employment and World Trade. 

Panel IV — International Trade and Monetary 
Systems, Inflation and the Relationships Among 
Differing Economic Systems; 

Panel V — Change, National Security and Peace, and 


Panel VI — Quality of Life of Individuals and 
Communities in the U.S.A. 

In brief, the Commission is a Rockefeller study group, 
funded in large part by a Rockefeller organization. 

The Third Century Corporation, a New York not-for- 
profit organization, was created to finance the work of 
the Commission. Since the start of its activities in the 
fall of 1973, the Corporation has received contributions 
and pledges from individuals and from foundations well- 
known for their support of public interest activities. 

The Drive for New World Order 

While publically portrayed as a high level discussion group, 
the Trilateral Commission is dedicated to New World Order. 
The most comprehensive statement of New World Order is to 
be found in Trilateral co-founder Brzezinski's book, Between 
Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, published 
just before the Trilateral Commission was founded. 

This book is the blueprint for a "more just and equitable 
world order." In one sense it is not much different to scores of 
other plans for political control that go back to Greek times 
and include More's Utopia, Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin, Adolf 
Hitler, Mao... all are schemas for political control. 

The only document in history that has rigidly defined and 
restrained government control is the Constitution of the 
United States, unique because it limits government power. 
Brzezinski's book dismisses the Constitution... for the same 
reasons that all other political documents have dismissed 
freedom, i.e. because it is "inadequate." However, 
Brzezinski's rejection of the Constitution is on unique 
grounds — "the age cannot bear the problems of assimilating 
the old into the new" — yet many of the problems are created 
by the self- same Trilateral members who now propose 

According to Brzezinski mankind has moved through three 
states of evolution and we are now in the middle of the fourth 


and final state. In some ways the secular Brzezinski analysis 
is parallel to Jose Arguelles' The Mayan Factor, a mystical 
calendar of the world divided into periods. According to The 
Mayan Factor, our world is also presently in the final stages 
of dissolution, culminating in 2012 when it passes to higher 
levels of consciousness. 

Back to Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission. 
The first global stage is described as "religious" and combines 
"a heavenly universalism provided by acceptance of the idea 
that man's destiny is essentially in God's hands" with an 
"earthly narrowness derived from massive ignorance, illiteracy 
and a vision confined to the immediate environment." 

The second stage is nationalism, and defined as "another 
giant step in the progressive redefinition of man's nature and 
place in our world." In Arguelles this is paralleled as 

The materialist philosophy of Marxism comprises the third 
stage. For Brzezinski "this represents a further vital and 
creative stage in the measuring of man's universal vision." 
Neither David Rockefeller nor Zbignieuw Brzezinski cite the 
technological and moral weaknesses and excesses of Marx- 
ism. They view it as "creative" and a significant factor in 
man's maturity. 

In reality, — and history has now demonstrated what some 
of us argued for years — Marxism is a hollow sham, a gigantic 
con job, a device for New York capitalists to control a country 
through technology and debt while pretending the opposite. 

It was American trade unions, especially under Samuel 
Gompers and George Meany, that recognized the phoniness 
of Marxism. Wall Street and many academics who should 
have known better were the promoters, allies and apologizers 
for Marxism. Capitalists, because a monopoly state offers the 
opportunity of monopoly markets and monopoly profits with- 
out any uncomfortable criticism from the street. Academics, 
because Wall Street-financed Universities offer opportunities 
for self-advancement and self-aggrandisement. 

After Marxism, according to Brzezinski, comes the fourth 
and final stage, the Technetronic Era or the idea of rational 


humanism on a global scale, the result of American- 
Communist cooperation. Here is the Brzezinski view of the 
contemporary structure which is a tortured framework to 
present a supposed requirement for a New World Order 
political structure: 

Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate 
the new into the framework of the old. For a time the 
established framework resiliently integrates the new by 
adapting it in a more familiar shape. But at some point 
the old framework becomes overloaded The new input 
can no longer be redefined into traditional forms, and 
eventually it asserts itself with compelling force. Today, 
though, the old framework of international politics — 
with their spheres of influence, military alliances 
between nation- states, the fiction of sovereignty, 
doctrinal conflicts arising from nineteenth century crises 
— is clearly no longer compatible with reality. 

Interestingly the Brzezinski estimate of change is 
significantly in error and this error will undoubtedly affect the 
nature of the world to come. New World Order is not 

Firstly, the current trend is towards small political units 
reflecting ethnic and national groups. Within the United 
States we have proposals for independent States and to 
divide States into two or three segments as large units 
become ungovernable and "overloaded." The framework is 
"overloaded" but the reaction is smaller units, not larger, 
ungovernable units. This is precisely the opposite reaction 
proposed by the Trilateral Commission. 

Secondly, when it comes to "rational humanism" Brzez- 
inski is again way off contemporary evolvement. Religion is 
coming back and in a more spiritual form. The older churches, 
institutionalized churches, are suffering losses, particularly 
the 2000-year-old Catholic church. However, there is a 

of religion through modern technology, i.e. radio churches and 
TV evangelists. Further there is a spiritual evolvement of 
extraordinary proportions in non-traditional forms such as 


meditation and communal groups. Some of these groups, 
such as the Church Universal and Triumphant in Montana, 
are now established and accepted by traditional areas. 

This is a far cry from "humanism" and non-religion! How- 
ever, it is in technology that we find departures from the "new 
world" proposed by Brzezinski and adopted by David Rocke- 
feller and the Trilateral Commission. The technology of the 
future has an emerging spiritual component. The physics of 
the future, post-high energy physics and the vacuum energy 
physics of the 21st century is also a spiritual technology. The 
Eastern concepts of Buddhism and the material world are to 
an extent merging with the vacuum physics of the West, Zen 
and western physics are merging in a manner that confounds 
the ideas of the Trilateral Commission. Agreed that this new 
input cannot be defined in traditional terms, in this limited 
manner Brzezinski is correct but the new framework is not a 
rigid New World Order. Paradoxically. New World Order 
turns out to be a reflection of the old traditional framework! 
Brzezinski and Rockefeller propose to replace the old frame- 
work with a new framework. . but one under their control. 



The interesting aspect of Trilateralism is that it brings to- 
gether the Administrators of power rather than the Holders 
of power. 

David Rockefeller is essentially the only power center in the 
entire Trilateral catalog. Politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats, 
media types, trade unionists come and go in the Trilateral 
halls of power — they are transient administrators. They 
retain administrative positions only as long as they are 
successful in using political power to gain political objectives. 
Operators do not, by and large, create objectives — this is an 
important point. One should label this group of operators 
"the hired hands." As Senator Mansfield once said of Con- 
gress, "To get along, you must go along." Trilateral operators 
are at the pinnacle of success in "going along." 

In the 1970's, nine of the American Trilateral commis- 
sioners were Establishment lawyers, from highly influential 
major law firms. The "revolving door" area between so-called 
public service and private gain, where attorneys alternate be- 
tween private practice and the federal payroll, clouds more 
precise identification. For some reason, two of the nine 
lawyers were partners in the Los Angeles law firm O'Melveny 
& Myers: senior partner, William T. Coleman Jr. (also a 
director of David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank and a 


former Transportation Secretary): and Warren 
Christopher, who was a partner from 1958-67 and from 
1969 until joining Carter's regime as Deputy Secretary of 
State, and Clinton's as Secretary of State in 1993. 

In 1994 William T. Coleman Jr., now a senior partner in 
O'Melveny & Myers, had already been Secretary of Transpor- 
tation, was still a Trilateralist and indeed a member of the 
exclusive Trilateral Executive Committee. 

From the same law firm of O'Melveny & Myers in 1994 
Warren Christopher had become Secretary of State after 
serving as Co-Director of President Clinton's Transition 
team, amid strong protests that he was not looking for any 
personal appointment. Christopher did an outstanding job for 
the Trilateral, appointing no fewer than 22 fellow members 
to the Clinton Administration that emphasized the "old way 
of doing business" could not continue. No doubt Christopher 
will return to O'Melveny & Myers after his term as Secretary 
of State, to continue the wheeling and dealing business. 

Moreover, this political influence duo is now joined in 1994 
by yet another partner in O'Melveny & Myers, Ko- Yung- 
Tung, Chairman of the firm's New York-based Global 
Practice Group. 

So this almost unknown Los Angeles law firm is in reality 
an influence -peddling outfit of the first category. This 
Trilateral trio highlights the cozy revolving door political 
influence game that makes a mockery of a free society. 

O'Melveny & Myers together with Kissinger & Associates 
and the Carlyle Group have a lock on political influence — and 
all just happen to be linked to the Trilateral Commission. 
George Franklin, former Executive Secretary of the Commis- 
sion, avers, this is a mere statistical accident, all talent just 
accidentally happens to be within the Trilateral Commission, 
that we shouldn't be concerned; in fact, according to Franklin, 
we should be grateful that such eminent ladies and gentlemen 
are willing to accept the burdens of "public service. " 

So how does this political influence game work? We'll 
suppose you're out there in Zaire or the Argentine and you 
want some U.S. taxpayer dollars — to build a bridge or "fight 


drugs," anything in fact that gives you opportunity to skim a 
little gravy off the top for your own hardworking self — what 
do you do? 

You head for Trilateral Mr. Ko-Yung-Tung, the O'Melveny 
& Myers man in New York, or Trilateral Henry Kissinger at 
Kissinger Associates, or former Secretary of Defense 
Trilateral Frank Carlucci at The Carlyle Group — all with 
excellent Trilateral connections and — for a substantial, very 
substantial, fee — they will take your case to Washington. 

And do you believe for one minute that some small time 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State who makes routine $100 
million aid decisions is going to look the other way when 
Henry, or Frank, or Yung-Tung telephone about the pitiful 
needs of Zaire or the Argentine? 

After all, a Deputy Assistant Secretary has ambitions one 
day of becoming a full-fledged Assistant Secretary and will 
need a few kind words from prominent persons. So the 
decisions on Zaire or the Argentine are not made with the 
interests of the United States taxpayer in mind but by what 
is termed elegantly as "political factors." 

Now contrast this con game with the many thousands of 
American citizens who suffered from U.S. radiation 
experiments in the 1940's and 1950's. They want compen- 
sation but have to go to court to try to get just compensation 
from the Department of Energy. The American in the street 
can't call up Henry Kissinger or Frank Carlucci or Ko-Yung- 
Tung (as can the Zairian Embassy or an Argentinian 
Senator). Poor Joe Blow has to use his limited funds to 
challenge a Department of Energy with unlimited taxpayer 
funds to fight its own citizens. 

This is what Trilateralism is all about. It's not about the 
Technetronic Age which is a long word about nothing and 
indeed if Brzezinski couldn't see the coming downfall of the 
Soviet Union, he can't be relied upon to for see the nature of 
the coming era. Trilateralism may be clothed in fancy lan- 
guage but it boils down to the exercise of political power in the 
interests of the Trilaterals and their associates. If you swallow 
the coy phrase "public service" then you shouldn't be reading 


this book. It's more like institutionalized ripoff. 

So you complain to Congress? Good luck! The Majority 
Leader, Thomas Foley Jr., is a Trilateral, as are many other 
Congressmen and Senators. Now you know why laws to re- 
strict lobbying always have gaping loopholes. 

Here are the prominent law firms with Trilateral partners, 
and so linked into the political influence network: 
Center for Law and Social Policy: 

Paul C. Warnke (pre- 1994) 

Philip H. Trezise (pre- 1994); 
Clifford, Warnke, Glass, McIlwain & Finney: 

Paul C. Warnke (pre- 1994); 
Coudert Brothers: 

Sol M. Linowitz (pre-1994) 

Richard N. Gardner (1973-1994); 
O'Melveny & Myers: 

Warren Christopher (1973-1994), 

William T. Coleman, Jr. (1973-1994) 

Ko-Tung-Yung (1994) 
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett: 

Cyrus R. Vance (pre-1994) 
Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering: 

Gerard C. Smith (1973-1994) 

Lloyd N. Cutler (pre-1994) 
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld: 

Vernon C. Jordan (1994). 

Propagandists and Technicians 

Quite distinct from the political operators, although their 
functions often overlap, are the propagandists (the media) 
and the technicians (academicians and research controllers). 
These groups provide the intellectual linkage between the 
power holders and the power administrators (the operators). 
Technicians design the plans needed to promote and imple- 
ment objectives. They explain ideas to the public and even 
conceive ideas — within limits. Technicians and propagan- 
dists achieve personal success only insofar as they have 
ability to conceive and promote plans within the overall 


framework welcome to the power holders. A media source dis- 
tributing unwelcome news or a researcher developing unwel- 
come conclusions is politely so informed — and usually takes 
the hint. Trilateralist technicians are experts at "getting the 

We find the following "think tanks" linked to Trilateralism: 
Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies: 

Maurice F. Strong 

Robert S. Ingersoll 
Brookings Institution: 

William T. Coleman, Jr. 

Henry D. Owen 

Gerard C. Smith 

C. Fred Bergsten 

Graham T. Allison, Jr. 

Philip H. Trezise 

Bruce K. MacLaury 

Center for Defense Information: 

Paul C. Warnke 
Columbia University 

Richard N. Gardner 
Georgetown University, Center for Strategic and 
International Studies: 

David M. Abshire 

William E. Brock, III 

William V. Roth, Jr. 

Gerard C. Smith 
Harvard University 

Graham Allison 

Robert R. Bowie 
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace 

David Packard 

George Schultz 
Hudson Institute 

J. Paul Austin 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 

Carroll L. Wilson 


Mitre Corporation 

Lucy Wilson Benson 
Rand Corporation 

J. Paul Austin 

Graham Allison 

William T. Coleman, Jr. 
World Watch Institute 

C. Fred Bergsten 

These "think" tanks are financed by foundations which are 
also linked to Trilateralism: 

Rockefeller Foundation 

Cyrus R. Vance 

W. Michael Blumenthal 

Robert V. Roosa 

Lane Kirkland 

John D. Rockefeller IV 
Twentieth Century Fund Russell Sage Foundation 

J. Paul Austin 
Ford Foundation 

Andrew Brimmer 

John Loudon 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

William A. Hewitt 

Hedley Donovan 

Thomas L. Hughes 
Borden Foundation 

Zbigniew Brzezinski 
Rockefeller Brothers Fund 

David Rockefeller 
Rockefeller Family Fund 

David Rockefeller 

John D. Rockefeller IV 
Woodruff Foundation 

J. Paul Austin 
World Peace Foundation 

Robert R. Bowie 

The Media 

Trilateralist media representation, although not large in num- 
bers, is highly influential. In the 1970's, of five media commis- 
sioners, three were relatively insignificant: Doris Anderson, 
editor of Chatelaine Magazine; Carl Rowan, columnist, and 
Arthur R. Taylor, formerly head of the CBS network, 
dismissed in October 1976. 

Two media Trilateral were highly influential: Emmett 
Dedmon, editorial director of the Chicago Sun-Times, 
published by Field Enterprises. The chairman of Field 
Enterprises, Inc., Marshall Field V, also a director of First 
National Bank of Chicago, operates Field Enterprises under 
an exhaustive agreement with his half brother, "Ted," 
Frederick W. Field; and Field ownership is significant 
because of Trilateral connections with the First National 
Bank of Chicago. In any event, Chicago Sun Times is the 
sixth largest newspaper in the U.S. (daily circulation 687,000). 

Another influential media Trilateralist was Hedley 
Donovan, editor-in-chief of Time, member of the Council on 
Foreign Relations and director of the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. According to the U.S. Labor Party: 

Donovan played a central role in the "faking of the 
President, 1976." Under his Trilateral direction, Time 
functioned as a black propaganda vehicle throughout the 
campaign and post-election period, painting Carter as an 
"outsider" with no connections with the corrupt politics 
of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street This "image build- 
ing" provided the crucial cover for the planned vote 
fraud, and Time played a crucial coverup role as 
widespread evidence of the Nov. 2 fraud surfaced. 

Trilateral disdain for the First Amendment is a factor 
working strongly against generally sympathetic media 
attention. On the other hand, Trilateralist intervention in 
day-to-day media operation, by use of the traditional tele- 
phone call, is probable, given the numerous Trilateral 
corporate directors in the media: Henry B. Schacht is a 


director of CBS; Sol Linowitz, a director of Time; J. Paul 
Austin, a director of Dow Jones; Harold Brown, a director of 
Times-Mirror Corporation; Archibald K. Davis, a director of 
Media General, Inc.; Peter G. Peterson, a director of Great 
Book Foundation and National Education TV; William M. 
Roth, a director of Athenum Publishers; and Cyrus Vance, a 
director of the New York Times. Their presence is ominous. 
However, any persistent intervention to kill or re-orient 
stories will backfire. Most media people are professionals 
rather than propagandists. 

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, supposedly a 
public institution, has always had a heavy Trilateral bias. 
This reflects the blurring of public and private which 
Trilaterals exercise so well for their own advantages. 

Sharon Percy Rockefeller, wife of Commissioner John D. 
Rockefeller IV, former Governor, now Senator from West 
Virginia, is an example of this link. More emphatic is the 
funding of the PBS heavyweight programs which mold public 
opinion by Trilateral-oriented and Trilateral-represented firms. 

Robert C. Wenks, a Trilateral in 1994, is also Chairman of 
Prudential Securities, Inc. and finances "Wall Street Week 
with Louis Rukeyser," and you will never hear Rukeyser 
criticize the Federal Reserve private banking monopoly or 
argue gold as the only stable basis for a monetary system. 

"Tony Brown's Journal" on PBS is funded by Pepsi-Cola, a 
major Trilateral-linked firm with at least one or two directors 
always on the Trilateral Commission. Pepsi is one of the gung 
ho New World Order firms and as you will remember, was 
first into Communist China and only second after Coca Cola 
into Soviet Russia. 

The famous MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour is financed by 
Archer Daniels Midland, a global corporation with Trilateral 
Dwayne Andreas as Chairman. Pepsi Cola also finances 
MacNeil Lehrer. 

General Electric is another long-time Trilateral firm; Paolo 
Fresco is the current Trilateral Chairman, and finances the 
McLaughlin group. 

So — how impartial do you think PBS can be when it comes 


to New World Order? And this government-backed organi- 
zation is supposed to be a "public" institution. Instead it 
illustrates how Trilaterals have a flair for quietly influencing 
public institutions. 
The following media outlets are also linked to Trilateralism: 

New York Times: 

Cyrus R. Vance (1978); 
Flora Lewis (1994) 

Arthur R. Taylor (1970s) 

Henry B. Schacht (19702) 
Los Angeles Times 

Harold Brown (1979) 

Robert Erburn (1994) 
Time, Inc. 

Hedley Donovan 
Foreign Policy Magazine 

Samuel P. Huntington 

Thomas L. Hughes 

Richard N. Cooper 

Elliot L. Richardson 

Marina von Neumann Whitman 

Richard Holbrooke 

Zbigniew Brzezinski 
Foreign Affairs 

William M. Roth 

C. Fred Bergsten 
Chicago Sun-Times 

Emmett Dedmon 


V. Thomas Johnson (1994) 
Washington Post 

Katherine Graham (1994) 

Politics and Government 

Trilaterals are often politicians. In 1977, 27 out of 77 U.S. Tri- 
lateralists were also professional politicians and professional 
bureaucrats. In 1993 the number had increased to 39 politi- 


cians and bureaucrats. 

In 1977 President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter 
Mondale were Trilaterals. In 1993 President Bill Clinton and 
Vice President Albert Gore were Trilaterals. It should be 
emphasized that selection by the Trilateral Commission was 
long before they became residents of the White House. 

Interestingly, President Jimmy Carter was selected and 
promoted by none other than Trilateral President David 
Rockefeller. In 1992 the Trilateral backing was more discreet 
for Bill Clinton because of previous public criticism of the Tri- 
lateral Commission for its dominant influence. 

Here's how The Times (London) reported the Rockefeller- 
Carter linkup: 

Governor Jimmy Carter, the 1976 Democratic Presi- 
dential candidate, has for reasons known only to himself 
professed to be an innocent abroad, but the record is 
somewhat different. As Governor of Georgia, a state 
aspiring to be the centre of the New South, he led the 
state trade missions abroad. While in London in the 
autumn of 1973 he dined with another American visitor, 
but by no means an innocent, Mr. David Rockefeller of 
Chase Manhattan Bank. 

Mr. Rockefeller was then establishing, with the help of 
Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski of Columbia University, 
an international study group now known as the Tri- 
lateral Commission, He was looking for American mem- 
bers outside the usual catchment area of universities, 
corporation law firms and government, was impressed 
by the Governor, if only because he had ventured abroad, 
and invited him to join. Governor Carter, perhaps 
because he was already eyeing the White House from 
afar, was only too happy to accept. 

This enlightening statement in The Times has one 
significant error. The Trilateral Commission is no "inter- 
national Study group" — it is clearly a group that generates 
policies and tries to ensure that its own Trilateral Com- 
missioners have a role in implementing the policies. A study 


group would not place one-third of its members in 
Administration after Administration, both Republican and 
Democrat. This is, THE TIMES to the contrary, an operating 
group working towards specific self-centered objectives. 

The Congress 

Senators and Congressmen are members of the Trilateral 
Commission, which, given the negative belittling Trilateral 
view of the Congress, is somewhat surprising. On the other 
hand, modern politicians in the "Best Congress that money 
can Buy" have little trouble accommodating inconsistent 
policies providing the price is right — for them. 

Trilateralists also occupy key posts in the House, i.e., 
chairman of the House Republican Conference, majority 
whip, chairman of the Democratic Conference, and chairman 
of the House Democratic Caucus. In sum, Trilaterals have a 
lock on the legislative process. 

The significance of this lock on the legislative process is 
brought into focus when we examine the political ideology of 
Trilateralism as expressed by Crozier, Huntington, and 

• The democratic political system no longer has any 

• The concepts of equality and individualism give 
problems to authority. 

• The media is not sufficiently subservient to the elite. 

• Democracy has to be "balanced" (i.e. restricted). 

• The authority and power of the central government 
must be increased 

Weighing these totalitarian ideas which form the poli- 
tical philosophy of the commission against congressional 
membership in the Trilateral Commission, the reader will 
be tempted to ask, were these the political policies 
espoused by these politicians when elected to office? 

In any event, five senators also were Trilateral commis- 
sioners in 1978: 


LAWTON CHILES, Democrat, Florida 
ALAN CRANSTON, Democrat, California, Senate majority 

JOHN C. CULVER, Democrat, Iowa 

JOHN C. DANFORTH, Republican, Missouri 

WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Republican, Delaware 


Chafee, and William S. Cohen were added. 

This neatly reflects the Democratic majority in the Senate, 

three Democrats and two Republicans; and it is notable that 

the Senate majority whip — a key Senate post — is a 


The following six Congressmen were Trilateralists in 1978: 
JOHNB. ANDERSON, Republican, Illinois, chairman, House 

Republican Conference 
JOHN BRADEMAS, Democrat, Indiana; majority whip 
WILLIAM S. COHEN, Republican, Maine 
BARBER B. CONABLE, Jr., Republican, New York 
THOMAS S. FOLEY, Democrat, Washington; chairman, 

House Democratic Caucus 
DONALD M. FRASER, Democrat, Minnesota; chairman, 

Democratic Conference and Americans for Democratic 


In brief, top administration jobs — Republican and Demo- 
crat — are filled from a talent pool dominated by the Trilateral 
Commission. This selective process of filling top Executive 
Department slots with Trilateralists has been deliberate and 
ruthless. Before President Carter formally took office, 
numerous Trilateralists were appointed as follows: 
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI — assistant to the president for 
national security affairs 
CYRUS VANCE — secretary of state 
HAROLD BROWN — secretary of defense 
W. MICHAEL BLUMENTAL — secretary of the treasury 
ANDREW YOUNG — ambassador to the United Nations 
Warren Christopher — deputy secretary of state 
LUCY WILSON BENSON — undersecretary of state for 
security affairs 


RICHARD COOPER — undersecretary of state for economic 

RICHARD HOLBROOKE — undersecretary of state for East 

Asian and Pacific affairs 
W. ANTHONY LAKE — undersecretary of state for policy 


SOL LlNOWITZ — co-negotiator on the Panama Canal Treaty 
GERALD SMITH — ambassador-at-large for nuclear power 

Trilaterals in the Clinton Administration 

All Administrations since the Carter Administration have 
contained an unusually large number of Trilateral members. 
Nominally they resign on enterng government but as most 
promptly rejoin the Trilateral Commission on leaving govern- 
ment, "resignation" is a farce — part of the government/ 
private revolving door that retains influence in a small, like- 
thinking elitist group. 

President Bill Clinton is a "former member in Public 
service." When he leaves the White House, Clinton will 
undoubtedly rejoin the Commission and indeed could not 
have attained the Presidency without Trilateral approval and 

On the 1993 (July) membership list of Cabinet positions we 

find as Trilateral members: 

BILL CLINTON, President of the United States 
Warren Christopher, co-director of the transition with 

VERNON C. JORDAN (also a Trilateral). Thus the transition 

process was entirely controlled by Trilaterals. 
Bruce Babbitt, U.S. Secretary of Labor 
DONNA E. SHALALA, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human 

HENRY ClSNEROS, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Cabinet positions in 1994 are: 

GRAHAM ALLISON, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans 
& Policy 


LYNN E. DAVIS, Under-Secretary of State for International 

Security Affairs 
JOHN M. DEUTCH, Under-Secretary of Defense for 

David Gergen, Assistant to the President for 

WINSTON LORD, Assistant Secretary of State for East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs 
ALICE M. RlVLIN, Deputy Director, Office of Management 

and Budget 

JOAN EDELMAN SPERO, Under-Secretary of State for 

Economic and Agricultural Affairs 
STROBE TALBOTT, Deputy Secretary of State, formerly 

Ambassador to Russia 
PETER TARNOFF, Under-Secretary of State for Political 


Clifton R. Wharton, Deputy Secretary of State 1991-93, 

followed by Strobe Talbott. 
Other Government positions in the Clinton administration 
WILLIAM J. CROWE, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to Britain 
ALAN GREENSPAN, Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal 

Reserve System 
JAMES R. JONES, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico 
JOSEPH S. NYE, Jr., Chairman, National Intelligence 

Council, Central Intelligence Agency. 

As Executive Director George Franklin Jr. stated back in 
1978, the Trilateral Commission invites only members with 
New World Order viewpoints and goals. 

President Bill Clinton then is an ideal member, unusually so 
because his entire career has been formed under tutelage and 
guidance of New World Order advocates. (See JBS Bulletin, 
October 1992). 

Clinton has a B.S. in International Affairs from George- 
town University in 1968, where he studied under Carroll 
Quigley, whose famous Tragedy and Hope had been 
published in 1966. Quigley broke the story of an elitist British 
group financed by the Rothschilds and Cecil Rhodes, whose 
ambition was to run the world. Rhodes founded the Rhodes 


scholarships at Oxford University — and Clinton, a devout 
disciple of the New World Order message, was given a Rhodes 
scholarship to Oxford University. 

There is another side to the Quigley story which is little 
known, and we are aware of it because this author had some 
correspondence with Quigley about Tragedy and Hope. 
Quigley sincerely believed in New World Order but was not 
aware of the darker side of the globalist types until they 
refused to reprint his book and destroyed the plates; Quigley 
was alerting too many honest academics and citizens to the 
dark side of New World Order. The difference between 
Quigley and Clinton is morality. We know that Quigley was 
an honest academician, a little naive, genuinely puzzled why 
the Establishment wanted the secrets in Tragedy and Hope 
kept secret. Clinton, on the other hand, quickly learned the 
political power profit lessons of the New World Order, in the 
tradition of Rothschild and Rhodes. Consequently, while 
Quigley died a puzzled man, Bill Clinton has been supported 
at every turn of the road (until early 1994) by the Trilateral 
and their fellows to gain a reputation of deceit and devious- 
ness unequalled by any past President of the United States. 

As we write this (January 1994) Clinton is in trouble. We 
even hear rumors that he is targeted for political destruction 
and will be succeeded by another Trilateralist, former Mayor 
of San Francisco, now Senator Dianne Feinstein. But make no 
mistake, the Trilateral have a firm hold on the Presidency 
and will continue to bring their influence to bear on its 


Primary Occupation of Trilateral 

Commission Members (Past & Present) 

_ - ~ — ' 



Run your eye down the list of executive committee 
members:* who is the most powerful individual among them? 

There is no doubt that David Rockefeller dominates the 
executive committee, and thus the commission itself. Even if 
we are generous (or naive) and see the executive members as 
equals, then David would surely be primus inter pares. It is, 
however, naive to see David Rockefeller as an omnipotent 
dictator or the Rockefeller family as an all-powerful 
monarchy. This is a trap for the unwary. Our world is much 
more complex. We are looking at a family of families, a 
collective of power holders with at least several hundred, 
perhaps several thousand, members, who collectively aim to 
divert the world, not just the United States, to their own 
collective objectives. 

Let's start at the beginning. The Trilateral Commission 
was David Rockefeller's idea and promoted with David's 
funds. (Leave aside for the time being the U.S. Labor party 
theory that Trilateralism uses the Rockefellers as a "cover" 
for a "British conspiracy.") 

An interview with George S. Franklin, former commission 
coordinator, by Michael Lloyd Chadwick, editor of The 
Freemen Digest, published in Provo, Utah, is the most 
authentic version of the founding process which has yet 

* See Appendix A, p. 142 


surfaced. This portion of the interview follows: 

MR. CHADWICK: Mr. Franklin, you were a participant 
with Mr. David Rockefeller, Robert Bowie, Zbigniew 
Brzezinski and Henry Owen in forming the Trilateral 
Commission. Would you provide us with a brief history 
of how it came into existence? 

MR. FRANKLIN: David Rockefeller, in the winter and 
spring of 1972, gave several speeches to the Chase Bank 
forums in London, Brussels, Montreal and Paris. He 
recommended the establishment of an international com- 
mission on peace and prosperity which in fact is now the 
Trilateral Commission. He didn't receive an enthusiastic 
response in these meetings and he dropped the idea. He 
thought, "If the Chase Bank Forums don 't respond favor- 
ably to my suggestion then it's probably a lousy idea. " 

He then went to a Bilderberger meeting. Mike B lumen- 
thai was there (now Treasury Secretary), and he said, 
"You know, I'm very disturbed. . . Cooperation between 
these three areas — Japan, the United States and 
Western Europe — is really falling apart, and I foresee all 
sorts of disaster for the world if this continues. Isn't 
there anything to be done about it? "David then thought, 
"I'll present the idea once more," which he did, and he 
aroused great enthusiasm. The next eight speakers said 
that this was a marvelous idea; by all means, somebody 
get it launched 

David wasn't quite sure whether these were all his 
friends. He wasn't quite sure if they were being polite or 
if they really thought it was a good idea. So he took Zbig 
Brezinski back on the plane with him. Zbig thought it 
was a very good idea and had done some writing on it. 
Bob Bowie had done some writing on it too. When he got 
back, David asked me if I would go back to Europe and 
talk to some people more at leisure and see if they really 
thought this was a good idea They truly did 

David and I went to Japan in June of 1972 and he 
talked to a lot of people there. They thought it was a good 


idea, so we had a meeting of 13-15 people at his place in 
Tarry town (ed: New York). 

It was decided to go ahead and try to organize and 
form it 

There is no reason to doubt that formation came about in 
any other way — at least we have no evidence that Franklin is 
hiding anything. But note that the way the Trilateral Com- 
mission was founded suggests a loose power coalition, some- 
times in competition, sometimes in cooperation, rather than a 
small, tight, iron-fisted conspiracy run by the Rockefellers. 

But even the establishment Washington Post has found 
unsettling features about the Trilateral Commission in its 
current seemingly non-interested packaging. 

Consequently it is not surprising that Trilateral objectives 
are not shouted from the rooftops but inferred from policy 
statements, papers and positions as well as the personal 
philosophies of those chosen as members of the Commission. 

Here's the Washington Post observation: 

Trilateralists are not three-sided people. They are 
members of a private, though not secret, international 
organization put together by the wealthy banker, David 
Rockefeller, to stimulate the establishment dialogue 
between Western Europe, Japan and the United States. 

But here is the unsettling thing about the Trilateral 
Commission. The President-elect is a member. So is Vice- 
President-elect Walter F. Mondale. So are the new Secre- 
taries of State, Defense and Treasury, Cyrus R. Vance, 
Harold Brown and W. Michael Blumenthal. So is Zbig- 
niew Brzezinski, who is a former Trilateral director and, 
Carter's national security adviser, also a bunch of others 
who will make foreign policy for America in the next four 

No doubt this Washington Post observation was brought 
to the attention of David Rockefeller because by the 1990s 
the publisher of the Washington Post, Katherine Graham 
(Chairman of the Board of Washington Post Companies) had 
been appointed to the Trilateral Commission! 


Even though Trilateral control has continued, the Wash- 
ington Post has made no more remarks about "unsettling 

This was the White House composition in the early 70s. It 
remains the same today, in 1994, a heavily Trilateral 

President Bill Clinton is a Trilateral as was President Jimmy 
Carter. Secretary of State Warren Christopher is an original 
member of the Trilateral Commission. So are 22 other mem- 
bers of the Clinton Cabinet and sub-cabinet Administration. 

The personal philosophies of Carter appointees are similar 
to that of Clinton. . . they all adhere more or less to a global 
New World Order. Where, for example, President Truman 
was non-imperialist, these are imperialist Presidents. From 
speeches and letters written by Trilateralists we know their 
New World Order position. 

When the Trilateral Commission met in Tokyo, Japan, in 
January 1977. Carter and Brzezinski obviously could not 
attend as they were still in the process of reorganizing the 
White House. They did, however, address personal letters to 
the meeting, which were reprinted in Trialogue: 

It gives me special pleasure to send greetings to all of 
you gathering for the Trilateral Commission meeting in 
Tokyo. I have warm memories of our meeting in Tokyo 
some eighteen months ago, and am sorry I cannot be 
with you now. 

My active service on the Commission since its incep- 
tion in 1973 has been a splendid experience for me, and it 
provided me with excellent opportunities to come to 
know leaders in our three regions. 

As I emphasized in my campaign, a strong partner- 
ship among us is of the greatest importance. We share 
economic, political and security concerns that make it 
logical we should seek ever-increasing cooperation and 
understanding. And this cooperation is essential not 
only for our three regions, but in the global search for a 
more just and equitable world order (emphasis added). I 
hope to see you on the occasion of your next meeting in 


Washington, and I look forward to receiving reports on 
your work in Tokyo." 

Jimmy Carter 

Brzezinski's letter, written in a similar vein, follows: 

The Trilateral Commission has meant a great deal to 
me over the last few years. It has been the stimulus for 
intellectual creativity and a source of personal satis- 
faction. I have formed close ties with new friends and 
colleagues in all three regions, ties which I value highly 
and which I am sure will continue. 

I remain convinced that, on the larger architectural 
issues of today, collaboration among our regions is of the 
utmost necessity. This collaboration must be dedicated 
to the fashioning of a more just and equitable world 
order (emphasis added). This will require a prolonged 
process, but I think we can look forward with confidence 
and take some pride in the contribution which the Com- 
mission is making. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski 

The key phrase in both letters is "a more just and equitable 
world order." 

Does this emphasis indicate that something is wrong with 
our present world order, that is, with national structures? 
Yes, according to Brzezinski; and since the present 
"framework" is inadequate to handle world problems, it must 
be done away with and supplanted with a world government. 

In Brzezinski's Technetronic Era, the "nation state as a 
fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the 
principal creative force: International banks and multi- 
national corporations are acting and planning in terms that 
are far in advance of the political concepts of the 

Understanding the philosophy of and monitoring the Tri- 
lateral commission is the only way we can reconcile the 
myriad of apparent contradictions in the information filtered 
through to us in the national press. For instance, how is it 


that the Marxist regime in Angola derived the great bulk of 
its foreign exchange from the offshore oil operations of Gulf 
Oil Corporation? Why did Andrew Young insist that "Com- 
munism has never been a threat to Blacks in Africa"? Why 
did the U.S. funnel billions in technological aid to the Soviet 
Union and Communist China? Why does the U.S. apparently 
help its enemies while chastising its friends? 

These questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot 
be explained in any other way: the U.S. Executive Branch 
(and related agencies) is not anti-Marxist or anti-Communist 
— it is, in fact, pro-Marxist. Those ideals which led to the 
abuses of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini are now being 
accepted as necessary inevitabilities by our elected and 
appointed leaders. 

This hardly suggests the Great American Dream. It is very 
doubtful that Americans would agree with Brzezinski or the 
Trilateral Commission. It is the American public who is 
paying the price, suffering the consequences, but not 
understanding the true nature of the situation. 

One of the most important "frameworks" in the world, and 
especially to Americans, is the United States Constitution. It 
is this document that outlined the most prosperous nation in 
the history of the world. Is our sovereignty really "fiction"? 
Is the U.S. vision no longer compatible with reality? 
Brzezinski further states: 

The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the 
Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a 
national constitutional convention to re-examine the 
nation's formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 
1989 — the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitu- 
tion — could serve as a suitable target date culminating a 
national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrange- 
ments. . . .Realism, however, forces us to recognize that 
the necessary political innovation will not come from 
direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. 
The needed change is more likely to develop incremen- 
tally and less overtly. . . in keeping with the American 
tradition of blurring distinctions between public and 


private institution. 

Obviously Brzezinski, and global capitalists have no use for 
national sovereignty or the Constitution. Their interests are 
global — and much as they may protest we see no difference 
between Trilateral globalism and, for example, British and 
French imperialism of the 19th Century. Or the Holy Roman 
Empire for that matter. 

But this New World Order objective would not pass an elec- 
torate. Outside the globalists, the New World Order fanatics, 
we doubt that many in the United States are interested in a 
planned world economy under the dominance of Wall Street. 

In conclusion, the Trilateral Commission when pressed 
makes no secret of its unrepresentative nature nor its New 
World Order objectives. 

Back in 1978 in the previously cited radio interview with 
George Franklin Jr., then Executive Director of the Trilateral 
Commission, these objectives emerged under questioning 
from the author: 

SUTTON: Mr. Donovan, of Time-Life, has just been 
appointed Special Assistant to President Carter. Mr. 
Donovan is a member of your Commission. 
FRANKLIN: That is correct. 

SUTTON: Does this not emphasize the fact that the Carter 
Administration is choosing its administration from an 
extremely narrow range. In other words, the Trilateral 

FRANKLIN: I do not think that that needs any confirma- 
tion. That is a matter of fact that he has chosen most of 
his main foreign policy people, I would have to say, from 
the people he got to know while he was on the Trilateral 

SUTTON: Well, I can only make the statement that this 
leaves any reasonable man with the impression that the 
Carter Administration is dominated by the Trilateral 
Commission with your specific ideas which many people 
do not agree with. 

FRANKLIN: Well, I would certainly agree that people who 
were members of the Commission have predominant 


places in the foreign policy aspects of the Carter 
Administration. They are not, because they are members 
of the Commission, controlled in any sense by us. I do 
think that they do share a common belief that is very 
important that we work particularly with Europe and 
Japan or we are all going to be in trouble. 

SUTTON: But this common belief may not reflect the 
beliefs of the American people. How do you know that it 

FRANKLIN: I do not know that it does. I am no man to 
interpret what the people think about. 
SUTTON: In other words, you are quite willing to go ahead 
(and) establish a Commission which you say does not 
necessarily reflect the views of the poeple in the United 
States? It appears to me that you have taken over poli- 
tical power. 

FRANKLIN: I do not think this is true at all. Anybody who 
forms a group for certain purposes obviously tries to 
achieve these purposes. We do believe that it is impor- 
tant that Europe, Japan, and the United States get along 
together. That much we do believe. We also chose the 
best people we could get as members of the Commission. 
Fortunately, nearly all accepted The President was one 
of them and he happened to have thought that these 
were very able people indeed, and he asked them to be in 
his government, it is as simple as that. If you are going to 
ask me if I am very unhappy about that, the answer is 
no. I think that these are good people. 

The reader can make his or her own interpretation. We hold 
the view today in 1994 that we held in 1973 and 1978 (the date 
of the radio program) — that the Trilateral Commission is not 
representative of the United States, has clearly by its actions 
demonstrated that it is a group intent on manipulating power 
for personal advantage and that these actions or objectives 
are not those of American citizens — and the Trilateral 
Commission has no intention of putting the matter to a vote. 
Quod etat demonstrandum. 



The unstated concealed Trilateral policy is global power and 
influence, a policy best achieved by financial control. The 
dedicated interest of the Rockefeller family and international 
bankers in world order, world planning, global problems is the 
sure indicator that they understand how political control can 
be translated into dollars and cents. 

Trilaterals, one of several elitist organizations for global 
control, have organized influence peddling companies headed 
by their own Trilateral buddies. These grease the way more or 
less legally between government contracts and corporate 

Anti-lobbying laws are so deviously written and so easy to 
circumnavigate that in practice they do no more than con- 
vince the public that government contracts are intended to be 
influence free. 

The reality is that the revolving door is significantly con- 
trolled by Trilaterals and completely controlled by elitists, if 
we include the influence of such organizations as Council on 
Foreign Relations (long-time Chairman was David Rocke- 
feller) and Yale Skull and Bones (with members such as 
George Bush, Averell Harriman and other government 
movers and shakers). 

One well-known conduit for government business using in- 
sider influence is Kissinger Associates. Trilateral Henry 


Kissinger, founder and Chairman of Kissinger Associates, is 
former Assistant for National Security Affairs and a former 
U.S. Secretary of State. As such, Kissinger was able to 
acquire and use worldwide contacts and a thorough know- 
ledge of the contact-contract world. 

Kissinger & Associates charges global corporations substan- 
tial fees to act on their behalf within and without the United 
States. Kissinger uses his influence, earned and gained at 
US. taxpayer expense, to push the cause of his clients. This 
is, of course, influence peddling, but apparently legal because 
the loopholes written into the laws are big enough to drive a 
truck through and will remain that way until the voting 
public demands that politics be separated from personal 

A more recent influence peddling outfit is the Carlyle 
Group, subject of a scathing and well-written article in the 
New Republic (October 18, 1993). According to this article, 
the Carlyle Group was founded by David Rubenstein, a minor 
league former merchant banker, and named after the New 
York Hotel Carlyle. 

The Hotel Carlyle is a long-time corporate hangout. (We 
once visited one of the suites and found it to be a dismal, 
solidly-furnished building used by global wheeler dealers for 
private business.) 

The Carlyle Group according to New Republic holds a 
majority stake in firms that do business with the United 
States Government. Day-to-day operations are conducted by 
former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, a Trilateralist 
whose entire stock of expertise consists of whom he knows in 
Governent and how Government wheels mesh together. 

Among members of the Carlyle Group are former Secretary 
of State James Baker, a close friend of former President 
George Bush, former Budget Director Richard Darman, Trea- 
sury Secretary Donald Regan, Bush Campaign Chairman Fred 
Malek, George Bush Jr., former CIA Director Robert Gates, 
the current SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, Clinton transition 
team co-director Vernon Jordan, and politician Bob Strauss. 

These are former Cabinet-level politicians who have noth- 


ing to sell but their access in Government, i.e. their personal 
telephone books. All are directly or indirectly Trilateral 

Frank Carlucci openly lists himself in the Trilateral biog- 
raphies as "Vice Chairman, the Carlyle Group, former US 
Secretary of State." Vernon Jordan is listed as Partner Akin, 
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld." 

As New Republic author Michael Lewis describes the 

The Carlyle Group in short has become a kind of salon 
des refusees for the influence peddling class. It offers a 
neat solution for people who don't have a whole lot to sell 
besides their access, but who don't want to appear to be 
selling their access. 

So the "access capitalist" joins the perennial "Washington 
lobbyist" — roads to instant wealth for the not- so-fussy 
lawyer. One of the first successful Carlyle operations is known 
as "The Great Eskimo Tax Scam of 1987." This well- 
organized and well-thought out loophole enabled Alaskan 
companies to sell their losses for hard cash to other com- 
panies. These losses were used to reduce the tax load of the 
companies and so everyone gained — except the U.S. tax- 
payer. Carlyle, of course, was in the business of matching 
Alaskan losses to corporate tax avoidance. Eskimos were 
flown to Washington, D.C. and shown how to organize some 
dubious losses — for which the high-toned Carlyle Group took 
a fancy fee of one percent. 

According to New Republic, Carlyle has excellent expertise 
to enable firms to buy Government property cheap — as Car- 
lucci had spent billions of tax dollars in contracts to large 
military industrial firms, these same firms were no doubt will- 
ing to look kindly on his efforts to organize a private auction 
of assets. 

According to Carlucci, "everyone in our business is trying 
to figure out ways to avoid getting into an auction. Get into 
auctions, that's a way to lose a lot of money." The idea was 
"private auctions" for a few invited buyers. We call it a 


conspiracy to defraud taxpayers — but Department of Jus- 
tice hasn't yet lifted a finger to go into court. 

Trilateral Frank Carlucci, whose efforts are described by 
Jack Anderson as "the bureaucratic havoc wrought by Frank 
Carlucci, a human windstorm out of Washington" is a perfect 
example of the market value of political contact. . . Carlucci 
has worked in every administration from Kennedy to Bush, in 
numerous departments without any momentous contribution 
to public welfare. 

According to Carlyle Chairman Rubenstein, "I get resumes 
from some of the biggest names in town, lawyers who are 
making $800,000 a year. They call and say they'll come and 
work for free. It's almost embarrassing." Now why would any 
Washington lawyer want to work for free, in New York too? 
Obviously because Carlyle has a reputation for making 
money, lots of money, at public expense and is apparently 
untouchable. Yet one senses a certain uncertainty because 
the last words to the New Republic writer were "How do I 
keep it from being a cover story?" 

Global Money Monopoly 

Trilateral want monopoly, world monopoly. Therefore, you 
must hold a key fundamental proposition in mind: Trilateral 
are not interested in what monetary system works best, or 
most equitably, or whether gold is a more effective monetary 
device than paper, or what monetary system will support a 
higher standard of living for the world's poor. 

The overriding drive for Trilateral is to manage the world 
economy, "manage" being a euphemism for control. This con- 
trol is exercised through so-called coordination of macro- 
economic policy, in spite of the dismal results from attempted 
macroeconomic direction. It is argued that the prime deside- 
ratum for this control device is to keep world peace. Nowhere 
is there any recognition of the historical fact that such control 
has always led to conflict: that denying national and ethnic 
independence is a sure road to strife and bloodshed. 

Trilateral by their own words are interested in political 
power: all objectives are subordinate to the political power 


needed to order the world as the Trilateralists see fit. So you 
will not find rational consideration of alternatives, or the 
weighing of options in Trilateral dogma. You can, however, 
expect an irrational drive, come what may, to control the 
world in the name of globalism and New World Order. 

Triangle Paper 14, "Towards a Renovated International 
System," concludes that the 1944 Bretton Woods system has 
already "come under increasing strain," and events have 
forced traumatic changes, that is, the periodic assault on the 
dollar and floating exchange rates. The current Trilateral 
objective is to build an international system, a world order 
based on cooperation and focusing on two aspects which 
require such cooperation: 

• International lending, and 

• The creation of international reserves. 

The Trilateral proposal is to involve five to ten leading core 
countries in establishing the new system. The rest of the 
world will have to go along as best it can. Some ideas to this 
end have already been implemented: for example, a new man- 
made artificial international money, the Special Drawing 
Rights (SDRs) has been created for central banks. As the 
SDR is introduced, gold will (supposedly) be phased out of the 
international reserve system. 

International Bankers and Bancor 
(Paper Money) 

The benefits of Bancor will accrue to international bankers 
more than to anyone else. The interlock between New York 
international bankers, the Trilateral Commission, and thus, 
Trilateral proposals in Bancor can be traced precisely. 

The earnings that major banks receive from overseas is a 
matter of public record and is a measure of the division 
between their domestic interests in the United States and a 
global economy. The degree of domestic control over the 
economy by international banks has been identified in a 
report published by the late Senator Lee Metcalf, "Voting 
Rights in Major Corporations." Also a matter of public record 
are the names of international bankers who are Trilateral 


Commissioners. When we integrate these three statistics, (a) 
source of bank earnings, (b) control of domestic companies, 
and (c) Trilateral membership, we identify a highly significant 
interlock between international banks and the Trilateral push 
for a global economy. 

Table 4-1 ranks 12 international banks in order of their 1976 
earnings from overseas; that is, the bank with the highest per- 
centage of its earnings from overseas is ranked Number 1, 
and the bank with the least percentage from overseas is 
ranked Number 12 (columns 1 and 2). This percentage is com- 
pared with the equivalent 1970 figures to demonstrate that 
foreign earnings have ballooned since 1970 (columns 3 and 4). 
Column 5 is the Metcalf Index of domestic control by these 
same bankers, defined as the number of the 122 companies 
examined by a congressional committee in which the bank is 
among the top five shareholders. Column 6 lists Trilateral 
commissioners who are also directors of these banks. 

Chase Manhattan is the bank with the highest percentage 
of earnings from abroad: a remarkable 78 percent, compared 
to 22 percent in 1970. In brief, David Rockefeller's inter- 
national merchandising has made Chase a global bank, not an 
American bank, and we might call David a de facto world 
citizen, not an American citizen. At the same time, Chase has 
a very low rating on the Metcalf Index. The bank is among 
the largest five stockholders in only eight of the 122 com- 
panies studied by the subcommittee (compared to Citibank's 
25 and J.P. Morgan's 56). 

No fewer than six Chase Manhattan directors (Kissinger is 
on the Chase International Advisory Board) were represented 
in 1976 on the Trilateral Commission. In sum, Chase is 
heavily, almost totally, oriented outside the United States. 
Its pecuniary interest in promoting a New World Order is 
slightly more than obvious. 

Contrast Chase to J.P. Morgan where 53 percent of income 
is from overseas (up from 25 percent in 1970) with only one 
Trilateral representative. Banks like Charter New York 
(formerly Irving Trust) and Chemical Bank do not appear on 
the Metcalf Index at all and have no Trilateral representation, 


that is, they are not apparently involved in creating a New 
World Order. 

This pattern is dramatized if we rearrange the data in Table 
4-1 with the highest Trilateral representation first. 

In a few words: the Trilateral Commission is dominated by 
a very few international banks, essentially Chase Manhattan, 
and is an institution focused outside the United States. At the 
same time, the Trilateral Commission has taken over the 
United States executive branch. We have not been taken over 
by communists or Russians or Martians but by a group which 
wants to "revise" the Constitution (to organize more political 
power) but is without majority financial and economic ties to 
the United States. 

Table 4-1 

International Banks and the Trilateral Commission (1976) 

1976 Rank 
in Foreign 


% of Earnings 
1970 1976 


No. of Trilateral 
as Directors 


Chase Manhattan 




6 Rockefeller, 








First Nat'l Bank 
of Boston 






Banker's Trust 






Charter New York 









1 Whitman 


J.P. Morgan 




1 Austin 


Chemical Bank 





Bank of America 




2 Clausen, 


Continental Illinois 




3 Hewitt, 


First Chicago 




3 Ingersoll, 


Wells Fargo 



1 Arbuckle 


Table 4-2 

Banks with Trilateral Representation (1976) 

Name of Bank 

Percent of Earnings 
From International 
Operations, 1976 


Number of Trilateral 

Commissioners as 

Chase Manhattan 




Continental Illinois 




First Chicago 




Bank of America 




Manufacturers Hanover 




J. P. Morgan 




Wells Fargo 




Banks with No Trilateral Representation 





First National of 





Bankers Trust 




Charter New York 




Chemical Bank 




Table 4-3 

International Banks and the Trilateral Commission (1993) 

Chase Manhattan 

World Bank 

Salomon, Inc. 
Goldman Sachs Int'l. 
Federal Reserve Bank 

David Rockefeller 
Thomas G. Labreque, CEO 
Wm. T. Coleman 
Henry Kissinger 

Jessica P. Einhorn, Vice President 

Robert McNamara, former Chairman 

John H. Gutfreund, former Chairman 

Robert D. Hormats, Vice Chairman 

Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman, 
Board of Governors 
E. Gerald Corrigan, President, 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
Alan Greenspan, Chairman, FRS. 

See Appendix A; Executive Committee members are marked 
with an asterisk. 


However, SDRs have proven no match for gold. Attempts 
to hold the price of gold at an artificially low "official price" 
proved elusive and ultimately demonstrated that even Tri- 
lateral power is subject to world market forces — and market 
forces are the sum of individual marketing decisions. 

The task ahead for the Trilateral Commission world mana- 
gers is to integrate these monopoly ideas into the world mone- 
tary system and make them work. The immediate and most 
compelling task is to operate the floating rate system to dam- 
pen erratic movements in exchange rates, which are, of 
course, damaging to international trade. Such erratic move- 
ments do not occur in fixed rates tied to gold. However, gold 
moves the world away from the "cooperative" international 
arrangements needed by Trilateral, and gold, therefore, is a 
bigger problem than floating rate disorder. Following this is 
the task of world reserve management. The Trilateral want 
"wider cooperation since the key to world reserve manage- 
ment is restraint in the additions to central bank holdings of 
gold and of course currencies such as the U.S. Dollar, the 
German Mark, the British Pound and the French Franc." 1 

The sinking dollar is also a problem, and an unforeseen one, 
particularly as it inevitably leads to lesser use of dollars as a 
world reserve unit. Trilateral with their vague views on gold 
were not able to foresee that the 1971 suspension of gold con- 
vertibility would be a millstone around the neck of dollar and 
"international cooperation." 

The out-of-date views on gold held by the U.S. Treasury, 
under Trilateral control, are well exemplified by a letter from 
Gene E. Godley, assistant secretary for legislative affairs at 
the treasury to Congressman J. Kenneth Robinson — a letter 
which incidentally illustrates clearly why the treasury has 
been able to lose billions of dollars for the U.S. taxpayer. 

There is, moreover, a high degree of uncertainty about 
the usefulness of gold as money. Its monetary role has 
greatly diminished in recent years,and its market price 
has varied widely. Thus, our gold stocks no longer repre- 
sent an assured source of financing for our imports. 


The principal objective in 1944, when Keynes proposed a 
universal money, was much narrower than current proposals: 
the system was to be one of multilateral clearing, a universal 
currency valid for trade transactions throughout the world. 
According to Keynes: 

It is not necessary in order to attain these ends that we 
should dispossess gold from its traditional use. It is 
enough to supplement and regulate the total supply of 
gold and of the new money taken together. The new mon- 
ey must not be freely convertible into gold, for that would 
require that gold reserves should be held against it, and 
we should be back where we were, but there is no reason 
why the new money should not be purchasable for gold." 

When it came to christening this new money, Keynes said, 
"What shall we call the new money? Bancor? Unitas? Both of 
them in my opinion are bad names, but we racked our brains 
without success to find a better." Even "Bezant" was pro- 
posed, interestingly the name of the last international coin (a 
gold coin) that circulated throughout the then known world 
for 800 years because it was a gold coin and never debased. 

Actually the two proposals, Bancor (British) and Unitas 
(United States), had different features. The adopted 
American plan, Unitas, deposited part of the U.S. gold 
reserves with the IMF together with a specific amount of 
domestic currency but created no international currency. By 
contrast, the Keynesian plan, Bancor, provided an interna- 
tional currency with overdraft facilities at the clearing union. 
In other words, today the Trilaterals have taken us back to 
the Keynesian Bancor plan rejected in 1944. 

A comparison of the two monetary schemes clarifies their 
major differences: 

Keynes Bancor Scheme 
(not adopted in 1944) 
Universal money - Bancor 
Gold accepted as a reserve 
No gold convertibility 

Trilateral-modified Bancor 
Scheme of 1978 (used today) 
Universal money — SDRs 
(Special Drawing Rights) 
Gold not accepted as reserve 
No gold convertibility 


National currencies not held 
as reserves 

Public approval necessary 

National currencies not held 
as reserves 

Public approval not necessary 

Bancor was not adopted in 1944. It's now a matter of his- 
tory that the related Harry Dexter White Unitas plan which 
was adopted led the U.S. into bankruptcy: the dollar weak- 
nesses of today are directly traceable to the Bretton Woods 
Unitas plan. 

Today's Trilaterals are political animals, with New World 
Order objectives, not interested in orderly world trade but in 
a specific future world structure under their control. The 
question is not to design a workable system to facilitate trade 
and improve human welfare, but to design a system that will 
enhance and preserve power for the Trilaterals. The Trilateral 
answer is to reinvent the system not used in 1944, the 
Keynesian Bancor, but modified this time as a universal cur- 
rency divorced completely from gold and national currencies. 

The extent of insider willingness to disregard, and even 
distort, widely held progold views of others is exemplified by 
an extraordinary statement in Robert Solomon's book, which 
is aptly subtitled An Insider's View. This is Solomon's 
interpretation of the motivation of gold-oriented economists: 

Those who are worshipful of gold (gold bugs or, more 
politely, chrysophilites) are usually motivated by one or 
more of these concerns: particular economic theories now 
held by a small minority of economists, distrust of 
government, (and) international political objectives. 

The rationale for paper money, to quote Robert Solomon 

Just as there is a need in each country for economic 
policies aimed at high employment and price stability, 
there is a need, at the international level, for a similar 
effort to make the policies of individual countries com- 
patible with the well-being of the world economy. Since 
there exists no international authority that can directly 


perform this function, it can be done only by means of 
consultation and cooperation among representatives of 
independent nations meeting together in established 
international form. 

This European episode and the later creation of the Euro- 
pean Currency Unit (ECU) exemplifies the Trilateral 
weakness in historical precedent. Why did the Germans 
refuse to go along with Keynesian demand stimulation? 
Because two factors are locked into the German psyche and 
ignored by American planners. First, the unparalleled rise of 
the German economy from the ashes of 1946 was due to plain 
old laissez faire free enterprise, not artificial Keynesian 
locomotives. Second, Germany has had two recent devastat- 
ing price inflations (1923 and 1946), and both times the Mark 
went to zero. Germans know the consequences of inflation 
and Keynesian-type stimulation. 

In sum, a combination of factors — German refusal to 
adopt Keynesian stimulation, the French political scene, and 
the collapse in the leading indicators (signaling a depression 
in 1979) — has reduced international cooperation and 

One can perceive in the background a central reason why 
the Trilaterals, essentially the big New York banking powers, 
must move ahead with Bancor. . . why they must develop the 
so-called Witteveen facility. . . why they must create elastic 
international reserves, to be expanded at the push of a 
computer key. 

The central unstated propellant for global fiat money is 
that the international monetary system is on a precarious 
merry-go-round: borrow — generate a deficit — be unable to 
repay — reschedule — borrow some more. The world debt bal- 
loon must be kept inflated If the balloon goes bust, so do the 
New York banks (remember Chase receives 78 percent of its 
earnings from abroad). If one of the world players decides he's 
had enough, if a New York bank says no to Zaire, if Turkey or 
anyone of a dozen other LDCs default, the whole pack of 
monetary cards will come tumbling down. 


Monopolists Plot Their Course 

The 1993 Annual Meeting of the Trilateral Commision held 
very appropriately in Washington, D.C. on March 27-29 
focused on the new Clinton Administration. 

Trilateral Secretary of State Warren Christopher spoke to 
the group and read a letter from fellow Trilateral, President 
Bill Clinton. 

However, the most enlightening feature came from the 
Chairman's Report (page 75 in the Report) entitled "An 
Agenda for Trilateral Leadership." The title itself negates the 
propaganda that the Trilateral Commission is a "study 
group." This title claims "leadership" and an "agenda," i.e. a 
plan. And indeed the speech, presumably expected to be kept 
semi- secret, did spell out an agenda for a New World Order 
and the need for definite action and planning to bring this 

A future order based on sustained cooperation will not 
happen without the conscious planning and steering of 
political leadership and without a fuller sense among our 
citizens of the needs of this new era. ... 

Trilateral are right in believing that citizens are unenthusi- 
astic about "the needs of the new era." 

The "needs" are largely chosen and exploited by the Tri- 
lateral themselves for self interested reasons. Furthermore 
Trilateral have no legal validity. They are not elected. They 
are not subject to any citizen review. They apparently can do 
what they want without consulting any citizen. No wonder 
citizens are uninterested. And if enough read this book (a 
most unlikely event) citizens might even start to think that 
their sovereignty has been usurped — and start to look for the 
rope to hang the perceived creators of contemporary misery. 
When GATT and NAFTA reduce even further American 
standards of living, citizens will be looking for a scapegoat. 
When crime and phony "wars" on drugs, crime, poverty and 
everything else evolve into street bloodshed — this author 
would not want to be in a Trilateralist's shoes. Nor in those of 
an international banker sitting in New York. 


Note David Rockefeller, Chairman of Chase Manhattan 
Bank is the 

founder and North American Chairman as well as 
Chairman of the 
Executive Committee that selects Trilateral members. 

The Trilateral Commission 

Georges Berthoin Takeshi Watanabe David Rockefeller 

European Chairman Japanese Chairman North American Chairman 

Egidio Ortona nobuhiko USHIBA Mitchell Sharp 

European Deputy J apanese Deputy Chairman North American Deputy 

Chairman George S. Franklin Chairman 

Martine Trink Tadashi Yamamoto Charles B. Heck 

European Secretary Japanese Secretary North American Secretary 

North American Members 

David M. Abshire, Chairman, Georgetown University Center for Strategic 

and International Studies 
Gardner Ackley, Henry Carter Adams University Professor of Political 

Economy, University of Michigan 
Graham Allison, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 

Harvard University 
Doris Anderson, President, The Canadian Advisory Council on the 
Status of Women; former Editor, Chatelaine Magazine 
John B. Anderson, U.S. House of Representatives 
J. Paul Austin, Chairman, The Coca-Cola Company 
George W. Ball, Senior Partner, Lehman Brothers 
Michel Belanger, President, Provincial Bank of Canada 
Robert W. Bonner, Q.C., Chairman, British Columbia Hydro 
Robert R. Bowie, Harvard Center for International Affairs 
John Brademas, U.S. House of Representatives 
Andrew Brimmer, President, Brimmer & Company, Inc. 
Arthur F. Burns, Distinguished Scholar in Residence, The American 
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; former Chairman of 
Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve Board 
Philip Caldwell, Vice Chairman and President, Ford Motor Company 
Hugh Calkins, Partner, Jones, Day, Reavi's & Pogue 
Claude Castonguay, President, Fonds Laurentien; Chairman of the Board, 

Imperial Life Assurance Company; former Minister in the Quebec 


Sol Chaikin, President, International Ladies Garment Workers Union 
William S. Cohen, United States Senate 

*William T. Coleman, Jr., Senior Partner, O'Melveny & Myers; 
former U.S. Secretary of Transportation 
Barber B. Conable, Jr., U.S. House of Representatives 
John Cowles, Jr., Chairman, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 
John C. Culver, United States Senate 




In a previous volume, TRILATERALS OVER WASHINGTON, we 
pointed out that a Trilateral objective is to exaggerate and 
exacerbate world problems so that Trilateral power to control 
and order a new world may be magnified. 

We pointed out that such magnified problems appear to be 
selected according to the following criteria: 

• The problem must be important from a global viewpoint; 

• The problem must be one that can be solved by some 
degree of Trilateral-Communist cooperation following a 
presumed unstated objective to merge the U.S. with a 
socialist structure. 

• The venture must be one that can be pursued without 
undue intrusion into the internal affairs of the 
participating states. 

An important problem area that fits the criteria for 
selective manipulation is that of world food. Food supplies are 
inadequate, people need food to live, and the technological 
and financial abilities for food production are heavily within 
Trilateral countries. As Triangle Paper No. 13 puts it: 

Prospects are somewhat more substantial for coopera- 
tion in the realm of increasing food production. Produc- 
tion increases require both more effective domestic 


agricultural policies on the part of developing countries 
and enlarged provision of outside capital and technology 
to them for agricultural development. 

In particular, Triangle Paper 13 claims: 

The prospects for cooperation are more promising with 
regard to the third objective: the development of ade- 
quate food (particularly grain) reserves. A reserve stock 
policy that could keep cereal price changes within a less 
disruptive range than in the recent past could make a 
considerable contribution not only to restraining infla- 
tion in the developed and developing worlds, but also to 
ensuring that adequate food supplies are available to 
developing nations at prices that will not impose an 
undue drain on foreign exchange... 

In considering Trilateral targets for international food 
reserves and world agriculture, we need to consider what the 
Trilaterals say they want and compare it to what they really 
want. Fascinated by the idea of "food power" and "contrived 
shortages," the Trilaterals intend to use food as a weapon to 
bring about the New World Order. One stated objective is to 
create an "international system of national food reserves" by 
massive manipulation of recently acquired political power 
against private markets and initiatives. It is proposed, for 

• To keep grain prices in a "less disruptive range," 

• Restrain inflation, 

• Ensure adequate food reserves for lesser developed 
countries (LDCs) and 

• Overcome periodic food imbalances. 

Trilateral intentions for a world grain storage program are 
published by the Trilateral Commission and the Brookings 
Institution, headed by Trilateral Commissioner Bruce K. 
MacLaury. Other Trilateralists on the Brookings Board of 
Trustees include Robert V. Roosa (partner in Brown Brothers, 
Harriman), Lucy Wilson Benson, and Gerard C. Smith 
(ambassador at large for non-proliferation matters.) In 1976 


Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Philip H. Trezise, with 
the assistance of former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 
Carroll Brunthaver, published Re Building Grain Reserves: 
Toward An International System. Brunthaver had previously 
been involved in a conflict of sworn testimony, investigated 
by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. 
(See Report, Russian Grain Transactions, 93rd Congress, 2nd 
Session, p. 33). In the Trezise book, the problems for multi- 
lateral agreement on grain reserves are considered to be 
"formidable." Going ahead is "compelling" because of the 
following: upward moves in grain prices have a "pervasive 
influence" on all food prices; they mean more worldwide 
hunger; and grain stocks can be used in periods of famine. 

More specifically, Trezise proposed: 

• An initial reserve of sixty million tons of grain, rising to 
between seventy-five and eighty million tons by 1981, 

• Contributions from all industrial countries, including 
Argentina and South Africa, 

• A program cost of $6 billion plus $640 million in annual 
storage costs, 

• That stocks should be "national," bought at 10 percent 
above floor prices and sold at 10 percent below ceiling 

• That twenty million tons be set aside for famine reserve. 

As in most Trilateral writings, Trezise includes only evi- 
dence in favor of proposed Trilateral policy. Trilaterals typi- 
cally use an ideological procedure of gathering facts and opin- 
ion supporting their argument, never allowing a hint of seri- 
ous counterargument. Two glaring unstated consequences in 
Trezise's book are: 

1. Any such massive stockpiling will raise the long-term 
price of grain, negating the objective of "restraining 

2. The only way to stop the resulting inflation is through 
rigid government price controls and regimented farming. 

The choice of food products as a means of reducing national 
sovereignty is emphasized in the following paragraph: 


There are several reasons why commodities are treated 
differently than other products that enter into trade. 
Probably the most basic reason is that commodity sup- 
plies are linked to land, tying them to the concept of 
territory, over which nation-states exercise sovereignty. 
As a general proposition, the demand for, and the supply 
of, most commodities are rather unresponsive to changes 
in price over short periods of time, so that quite sharp 
fluctuations in price can be generated by fairly modest 
changes in overall market conditions. Moreover, the time 
required to expand supplies is often lengthy, although 
this property varies widely among individual commodi- 
ties. Although the value of all commodity consumption 
represents no more than about ten percent of annual eco- 
nomic activity in industrialized nations, and even 
though substitutes exist for any particular commodity, 
commodities are sometimes distinguished as "core 

The Trilateral elite, through control of the U.S. executive 
branch, will be calling the shots on a world basis to reduce 
producer control and indirectly national sovereignty. The 
amount of political power possessed by world grain producers 
can be measured by comparing the area devoted to 1976 
wheat production in Trilateral regions: 

Thousand Hectares 
European Economic Community 1 1 232 
Japan 89 
United States 28,700 
U.S.S.R. (for comparison) 59,462 

This U.S. /Trilateral dominance is further reflected in world 
export figures of wheat plus flour for 1975-76: 

Metric Tons 

United States 31,522,000 
Canada 12,136,000 
Australia 8,072,000 
EEC 7,729,000 
Argentina 3,111,000 
Japan 38,000 


If it were possible for other countries to substantially in- 
crease their wheat production, the quickest way to do so 
would be to raise government price support levels. However, 
except for Argentina, the U.S. already has the lowest support 
levels among the 30 or so wheat-producing countries in the 
world. Thus, one can see how the U.S. has acreage, yield, and 
production efficiency all working for it at the bargaining 

This discussion of "food power" is not academic — it has 
major significance for any grain trader, farmer, firm, or 
individual in any way connected with grain products. 

The Trilaterals propose international sanctions against any 
government, private firm, or producer (in or out of an associ- 
ation) that interferes with Trilateral objectives. These sanc- 
tions will not be applied in any principled way, but will be 
used pragmatically to achieve Trilateral goals. The key to this 
plan and associated sanctions is in Triangle Paper 10, "Seek- 
ing a New Accommodation in World Commodity Markets." 
Therein, the concept of "contrived shortages" is floated. A 
contrived shortage is any non-Trilateralist action in the 
market place that interferes with Trilateral objectives. For 
example, a farmer withholding grain from the market and 
waiting for a higher price, is guilty of contrived shortage. The 
paper further states that these contrived shortages can be 
informal, rather than brought about by a formal association 
of producers. 

While all offenders are to be subject to effective interna- 
tional investigation and action, the penalties are not to be 
applied equally. A non-Trilateral developed country such as 
Argentina or South Africa will be dealt harsher penalties (i.e. 
sanctions) than underdeveloped Zaire or Zambia (phrased 
subtly as ". . .in the case of non-industrialized countries, 
however, it is necessary to consider this issue from a broader 
political perspective"). 

Consequently, any informal or formal farmers group in the 
U.S. protesting price levels — and such protest will be inevi- 
table when Trilateral objectives surface — will be subject to 
penalties. When can these individual firms and nonfavored 


governments anticipate Trilateral hostility? Probably under 
the following conditions: 

• If they attempt to stabilize or move market prices to non- 
Trilateral levels, 

• If they respond to market imperfections or undertake any 
systematic withholding of supplies from the market, 

• If they make any information exchange for these purposes. 

Trilaterals are well aware that market fluctuations in agri- 
culture are highly sensitive to supply changes, and that 
whoever controls the supply controls the market. 

In Triangle Paper 14, "Toward a Renovated International 
System," two additional and interesting caveats relating to 
international grain reserves appear: 

1. That the Soviet Union can benefit from fixed prices and 
guaranteed sources of supply, and 

2. That if the U.S.S.R. doesn't see the wisdom of joining 
the Trilateral plan, the Trilaterals will go it alone. 

On the other hand, the paper comments: 
We have not sought ventures that would exacerbate 
Sino-Soviet rivalry. We have thus focussed, for the most 
part, on projects that would involve either the USSR or 
China, but not both. This does not mean that cooperation 
with the Soviet Union and China cannot be pursued 
simultaneously — only that it should not focus on the 
same projects. 

The chances of Soviet or Chinese agreement are, of 
course, uncertain; our assessments are tentative, based 
on such limited evidence as exists. Only by seeking 
cooperation can its feasibility be ascertained 
Looking at the period since 1976 when these ideas were 
floated, agriculture has been used to promote New World 
Order, in some ways not too obvious. 

The Soviet Union dictatorship was kept alive for decades 
by American wheat sold at below market rates — and butter 
and cheese subsidized by the American taxpayer. Further- 
more Trilateral writer Philip Trezise was one of the most vocal 
Washington policy makers, promoting the downright false 


view that the Soviet Union was technically viable — all the 
while American grain companies and multinationals were 
preparing to exploit the Russian market. 

When it came to Somalia however, a minor pawn on the 
New World Order scene, some two million Somalis were 
allowed to starve before U.S. came to offer help — then the 
help was a comic opera military excursion (network TV 
cameras were on Somali beaches filming U.S. Marines wading 
ashore — presumably the network crews got there first with 
dry feet). The Somali fiasco demonstrated that Trilateral 
objectives are political, not humanitarian. The humanitarian 
is merely an excuse for the military. 

And while Trilateral say they will not "exacerbate Sino- 
Soviet rivalry" they most certainly condone Chinese persecu- 
tion of dissidents. Every time the Chinese demonstrate bru- 
tality towards their own people and the Western world calls 
for sanctions, the Trilateral forces urge restraint and caution. 
For what reason? Obviously, to protect investments in China. 

Crisis Politics in Agriculture 

As Trilateral policies are implemented, unrest among farmers 
surfaces — mostly in Europe, especially among French and 
Belgian farmers but also from time to time in the United 

A nationwide farm strike was well underway in mid- 1978, 
with participating farmers from all areas of agriculture. 
Demonstrations like "tractorcades" were common events 
covered on national T.V. While some farmers in winter 
areas were not sure if they would be planting spring crops, 
others were already pressed to the wall with bankruptcy: they 
had no choice but to refrain from planting as long as prices 
remained relatively low. Once again the banks were in danger 
of becoming owners of real estate — farms. Since banks do 
not want that responsibility, every effort was made to 
support shaky farms and ranches. Recently, the Federal Land 
Bank (where most farmers have found an easy and inexpen- 
sive source of credit for decades) announced it would not 
foreclose on farmers in default. The implications of this are 


far-reaching, especially since no one knows just how many 
farmers are in serious trouble. 

Big changes cannot be implemented only during periods of 
crisis. It appears the Trilateralists are pushing for a major 
farming crisis in the U.S. within the next year or so, one that 
can be manipulated for Trilateral ends. If the farming indus- 
try becomes bankrupt, the government's only choice will be 
to "institutionalize" the nation's food production in the same 
manner that Amtrak was "nationalized." On the other hand, 
if the government chooses to let prices rise to the point where 
farmers can realize a profit, it will be only with additional and 
far-reaching controls over the farmer. Government-induced 
prosperity has always resulted in a trade-off: Profits for 

The current situation in the U.S. plays directly into Tri- 
lateral hands. The grain or "cereal snake" will be a foregone 
conclusion when the Trilaterals find themselves caught in the 
vise between farmers crying for higher prices and consumers 
demanding lower food prices. But, of course, it will have been 
a "contrived" crisis in the first place. 

How then will a national grain reserve — keyed to the inter- 
national grain plan of the Trilateral Commission — affect the 
American farmer? 

The carrot offered by the Carter administration, under Tri- 
lateral control, was stable and "high" prices. Farmers, suffer- 
ing from four years of low prices, were eager listeners. Secre- 
tary of Agriculture Bergland (a Trilateral nominee) vowed "to 
even out the booms and busts" in agriculture. (To this, former 
Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz responded, ". . . you'll 
notice he's going to even out the boom first.") In practice, the 
Carter grain storage program produced the following: 

• A narrow grain price snake. The government supported 
the floor of the snake, while whipped-up consumer pres- 
sure, through a captive media, created a lid on the ceil- 
ing of the snake, making an ultimate government price 
ceiling inevitable. 

• More — and more — government control. 

If the government determines quantities produced and 


market prices, then ultimately, it will decree who plants what, 
and where. Farmers have yet to learn they cannot have tradi- 
tional freedoms and security at the same time. 

The summer of 1977 was favorable for grain farmers, due to 
increased yields and stocks; and then, worried over produc- 
tion and low prices, farmers asked for acreage cutbacks. By 
August 1977, Secretary of Treasury Blumenthal and Secre- 
tary of State Vance wanted no cutbacks: they argued in- 
creased production was needed for the storage program. It is 
not clear if this was a dispute between Trilateralists and non- 
Trilateralists in the cabinet, but it is not likely. Former 
Minnesota Congressman Bergland is not a Trilateral member, 
but he was sponsored by Vice President Walter Mondale — 
and Bergland has a longtime image to maintain of being "the 
farmer's friend." 

President Carter made a contradictory decision by calling 
for Congress to legislate a 20 percent acreage cutback plus 
adding 30 to 35 million tons of grain for the national stockpile. 

By 1994 the grassroots reaction by farmers could be iden- 
tified but had not reached crisis proportions. 

Finally American trade unions at the local level sensed they 
were being betrayed at the national level. In the days of 
Samuel Gompers and George Meany, American workers were 
represented with honesty in their struggle with management. 
The coming of Trilateralism changed that and it took many 
years for the unions to recognize they had been sold out. Lane 
Kirkland, boss of the AFL-CIO, was a long time Trilateral 
member (not in 1993). His place was taken on the Commission 
by Glen E. Watts, former President of the Communications 
Workers of America, and Albert Shanker, President of the 
American Federation of Teachers. 

A remarkable article, "DDT in the Baby Food — and other 
threats posed by GATT" appeared in the San Francisco 
Examiner (February 2, 1994) by Jay Hopkins, a writer on 
labor affairs. Remarkable, because the article not only 
reflected labor's sense of betrayal, but that it appeared in a 
major city newspaper. 

Here's a couple of quotes from Hopkins: "U.S. workers are 


being told by their own governing elite that they must 
compete in the world market against the poor masses in the 
Third World." 

The article points out that recent GATT sessions received 
delegations from "major corporations like DuPont, Mon- 
santo, and Cargill, alongside U.S. government officials. There 
were virtually no representatives from small businesses, 
farms, churches, unions, environmental groups. Obviously 
the economic interests of multinational corporations 
including those based in the United States are frequently at 
odds with the welfare of average Americans." 

Hopkins stated bluntly, "should the US Government 
defend American sovereignty, jobs and economic indepen- 
dence?" or "throw American workers and consumers into a 
downward spiraling global competition with nations that 
have nowhere near our quality of life?" 

What is happening in many industries and certainly in agri- 
culture and food processing, is that the American standard of 
living is being pulled down deliberately by the Trilateral 

Whether enough American workers, who are notoriously 
sparse readers, will read these words and spread the message 
is unlikely. In all probability, we shall see the old time high 
standard of living of the American worker go by the wayside. 
The unions should be watching out for their members, but 
union leaders are too interested in the trappings of power. 
Why American Federation of Teachers, Communications 
Workers of America, and International Ladies Garment 
Workers Union would want to be represented on the 
Trilateral Commission can only be explained in terms of the 
limited vision and self-advancing greed of union leaders. We 
cannot imagine that Samuel Gompers or George Meany 
would give the Trilateral Commission even the time of day. 

Trilateral Agriculture Under Clinton 

By the early 1990s Trilateral policies had further reduced the 
small family farmer and magnified the global power of large 


multi-national agricultural corporations. 

We find these global food firms heavily represented on the 
Trilateral Commission: 

DWAYNE O. ANDREAS, Chairman of the Board and Chief Exe- 
cutive Officer of Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, a global 
agricultural giant, which has featured a joint merged 
U.S.A.-Soviet Union in its Russian advertising. 

The formerly cited ROBERT McNAMARA and JESSICA 
ElNHORM of the World Bank, heavily involved in development 
of global agriculture. 

WHITNEY MacMillan, Chairman of the Board and CEO of 
Cargill Inc., the largest grain operators in the world. 

With the passage of NAFTA, where Clinton placed his total 
effort and prestige on the line, the doors were opened for U.S. 
global control of agriculture. The American consumer will not 
find lower prices but will see lower quality products in many 
cases (for example, in imported meat) and a loss of jobs in 
labor-intensive agricultural and food processing operations. 
Canning and meat processing plants are closing by the score 
in the United States and their operations moved overseas to 
lower wage costs. 

The original objective of world "cooperation" in agriculture 
stated in Triangle Paper No. 13 had been heavily imple- 
mented by 1994. However, the impact on American jobs can 
only be generally estimated because so much low-paying 
labor in the U.S. has come from illegal immigrants. 

Within another 20 years we project that all global agricul- 
ture and food processing will be under control of the interna- 
tional giants. This will give Trilaterals the power to create 
abundance or famine at will. 



Oddly, while there are Trilateralist papers on almost every 
major policy issue, there are none at all on taxation. After 
some research, we discovered a possible reason for the silence. 
Taxation is not a pressing problem for Trilateralists; it is only 
a pressing problem for you and me. Research unearthed an 
interesting paradox: Trilateral emphatically favor more 
taxes for the common man, but do very well avoiding taxation 
for themselves and their corporate vehicles. 

When we were able to identify Trilateral public statements 
on Proposition 13, for example, they were not unexpectedly 
strongly against reducing California property taxes. For 

• Bank of America (Trilateral Clawson and Wood were 
directors) contributed $25,000 to defeat Jarvis-Gann 
(Proposition 13). 

• Governor Thompson of Illinois, who is making appropri- 
ate presidential noises, rejected a similar tax reduction 
program in Illinois. 

• Carter said Proposition 13 is an "aberration" that will not 
sweep the country. 

• The Los Angeles Times (a director is Commissioner 
Harold Brown) was described by Jarvis himself as "the 
vindictive paranoiac, schizophrenic Los Angeles Times" 
for the vitriolic nature of its opposition to 13. 


In sum, Trilateral put their weight against Jarvis-Gann 
and tax reduction. 

Trilateral opposition to tax reduction most emphatically 
did not apply to their own taxes nor to those of their corporate 
affiliations. Trilateral multinationals have successfully 
avoided paying taxes in the United States and have made 
some headway in tax avoidance in England and possibly 

The United States picture was publicized by Congressman 
Charles A. Vanik (on 26 January 1978) after a congressional 
study of the taxes paid by major multinational corporations. 
Reported Congressman Vanik: 

This study, covering tax year 1976, examines 168 com- 
panies. These include 108 industrial, 7 mining, 8 airline, 
9 railroad, 5 trucking, 13 utility, 8 retailing, and 10 
commercial bank companies. Because a few did not 
furnish data adequate for computation, some categories 
of taxes or rates could not be computed 

Where sufficient data made computations possible, the 
average effective U.S. tax rate on worldwide income of 
the corporations was approximately 13.04 percent, down 
significantly from the 21.3 percent rate in tax year 1975. 
In order to qualify for a tax rate this low, an average 
family of four could only have earned $20,000. The 
companies listed in this study had a pretax income of 
more than $38.7 billion. 

The figures show that 17 companies paid nothing in 
effective Federal income taxes in tax year 1976 — 6 more 
than tax year 1975 — despite combined total worldwide 
net incomes of more than $2,594,060,000 — table 1. The 17 
companies accumulated tax credits of more than $375 
million. In some cases, however, companies paid no 
taxes because they sustained net losses. In other cases, 
some companies will claim to have "paid"Federal taxes, 
but their credits exceed taxes, resulting in no effective 
payment and an effective tax rate of zero. — 

Included in this tax avoidance group of multinationals we 


find numerous corporations with Trilateral connections. 

Having assumed the burden of deciding the future for 
American society and the New World Order, one would at 
least expect that Trilaterals pay their full share of the costs. 
We therefore examined the Vanik study from the viewpoint 
of identifying the taxes paid by multinationals represented in 
the Trilateral Commission by company directors. 

The lowest income tax bracket for an individual U.S. tax- 
payer is 14 percent. On the other hand, Chase Manhattan, 
Continental Illinois, and First Chicago, the power houses 
behind Trilateralism, all pay far lower rates. In fact, Chase 
Manhattan Bank paid no U.S. taxes at all in 1976. 

On the one hand, David Rockefeller (chairman of Chase and 
the largest individual shareholder in Chase,) wants to decide 
the future of American society and the world; on the other 
hand, his bank is totally unwilling to make a contribution to 
the new American society and a New World Order. 

Given these facts, we have every right to be skeptical about 
announced Trilateral intentions and objectives. We have 
every right to assume that the Trilateral Commission may be 
a gigantic rip-off on American society. 

Unfortunately no study of multinational taxation rates has 
been made by Congress since 1978, the Vanik study was the 
last comprehensive study which revealed the low rates paid 
by multinationals. However, we believe that the rates paid in 
the late 1970s and included here have not changed dramati- 
cally in the last decade. 

As we all know, personal income tax rates are much higher 
than the rates paid by the tax-avoiding multinationals. In the 
U.S. the starting individual tax rate is 14 percent and the 
highest rate is 70 percent. In Canada, the rate starts at 17 
percent and ranges to 43 percent. Other European countries 
have even higher rates up to a confiscatory 98 percent in 
Britain. If you are a Trilaterally-connected international 
bank, your effective rate in 1976 was much lower than the 
lowest individual bracket. In order of their success in 
avoiding taxes, Trilateralist banks rank as follows: 



U.S. Taxes 
in 1976 

Chase Manhattan 


Manufacturers Hanover 


First Chicago 


Continental Illinois 


Bank of America 


This success in avoiding U.S. taxation is carried abroad by 
these same multinationals. Take, for example, a report in the 
London Economist (14 January 1978) from the British view- 
point, under the scathing headline: 

"No Tax Please, We're Banks" 

American and other foreign banks in London could end 
up paying little or no British tax if their huge claims for 
relief which are now being examined by the Inland 
Revenue are accepted Even the British clearing banks 
could have their tax bills dramatically reduced 

... the MNC is also a source of concern to some govern- 
ments, since from its wide base it is often able to circum- 
vent national monetary, fiscal, and exchange policies. 
The possibility of distortions arising from intracorporate 
pricing practices to take advantage of national varia- 
tions in tax laws has also been cited with concern. 

A check of multinational corporations and their 1976 U.S. 
tax rates on world income turns up some multinationals that 
did pay significantly high U.S. tax rates. 

U.S. Taxes 

Company in 1976 

Getty Oil 21.14% 

R. J. Reynolds Ind. 41.0% 

Greyhound 46.8 % 

Textron 40.1 % 

Generally, however, those MNCs with Trilateral connec- 
tions appear to pay significantly lower rates. This is only an 
approximation. It could be a spurious correlation, but there is 
sufficient evidence to warrant a closer look. 



EXXON (controlled by Rockefeller interests) 
Standard Oil of California 

(Rockefeller and Packard) 
EASTERN AIRLINES (controlled by Rockefeller 

interests) (now defunct) 
ARCO (Ingersoll) 

Occidental Petroleum (Armand Hammer, 

one-time friend of Lenin, was chairman of 

the board of Occidental In 1919 Julius 

Hammer, father of Armand, was secretary 

of the Communist Party U.S.A. Hammer 

has been probably the most active western 

capitalist in building the military power of 

the Soviet Union.) 
Gulf Oil (Gulf provides almost $1 billion a 

year in oil concession revenues to the 

Marxist Neto regime. Gulfs Cabinda oil 

wells were protected by Cuban troops, thus 

releasing Angolans to support the SWAPO 

forces invading South-West Africa. 

We can push this argument a little further. Trilateralists in 
government are protecting fellow capitalists from taxation. 

A recent report by the House Government Operations 
Committee disclosed the following: 

• IRS decisions on some multinational oil firms have cost 
the U.S. Treasury over $7 billion since 1974. "By the early 
1970s, multinational petroleum companies were operat- 
ing abroad under a set of factual and legal circumstances 
completely at variance with those upon which the previ- 
ous foreign tax credit rulings were based." 

• IRS failed to audit oil company returns or require them to 
provide supporting information for their expense claims 
(Presumably audits are only for individual taxpayers.) 

• These favorable actions stemmed from "interference" by 
then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (Trilateral). 

1976 tax 






• More recent "improper interference" for the same purpose 
came from Secretary of Treasury Blumenthal (Trilateral). 

The committee did not cite the U.S. oil companies involved, 
except to note that they operate in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and 
Indonesia. Aramco alone was named in one place: this com- 
pany is linked with Exxon and Chase Manhattan interests. 

In brief, a House committee has charged Trilateralists 
Henry Kissinger and Michael Blumenthal with "improper 
interference" with IRS to obtain benefits for certain 
companies. Even further, 

In September 1977, at the very time that the subcom- 
mittee discovered and criticized a suggestion made by a 
Treasury official a year earlier to have IRS and Treasury 
officials "cooperate" in secret dealings with Indonesia 
and oil companies therein regarding foreign tax credits (a 
suggestion which was also admonished as being impro- 
per by other Treasury officials), the new International 
Affairs officials were recommending similar actions. 

Another example follows for those readers who have read 
my Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and who may 
remember that in 1918, the leading Wall Street law firm sup- 
porting the infant Bolshevik regime in Russia was Simpson, 
Thacher and Bartlett of New York. As one indication of then- 
support, partner Thomas D. Thacher wrote a report which 
became decisive in gaining British cabinet support for the 
Bolsheviks. Also Thomas Lamont, Dwight Morrow, and H. P. 
Davison were closely involved in developing policy towards 
the Bolsheviks: all were partners in the J. P. Morgan firm. 

While in London on 13 April 1918, Thomas D. Thacher, a 
member of the American Red Cross Mission to Russia, wrote 
to the American ambassador in London that he had received a 
request from H. P. Davison, a Morgan partner, "to confer 
with Lord Northcliffe" concerning the situation in Russia and 
then to go on to Paris "for other conferences." Lord North- 
cliffe was ill, and Thacher left a memorandum to be submitted 
to Northcliffe on his return to London with yet another 
Morgan partner, Dwight W. Morrow. This memorandum not 


only made explicit suggestions about Russian policy that 
supported the pro-Bolshevik position of William Boyce 
Thompson (director of Chase, now Chase Manhattan, Bank), 
but even stated that "the fullest assistance should be given to 
the Soviet government in its efforts to organize a volunteer 
revolutionary army." 
The first three proposals in Thacher's report follow: 

First of all... the Allies should discourage Japanese 
intervention in Siberia. 

In the second place, the fullest assistance should be 
given to the Soviet Government in its efforts to organize 
a volunteer revolutionary army. 

Thirdly, the Allied Governments should give their 
moral support to the Russian people in their efforts to 
work out their own political system free from the domi- 
nation of any foreign power. . . 

Was Wall Street attorney Thacher a capitalist enemy of the 
Bolsheviks? Of course not. Thacher was right in there, help- 
ing the revolution, as part of the "breakaway ruling class," 
along with capitalists from J. P. Morgan and Chase Bank. 

Similar aid for Marxist revolution came in South Africa and 
Red China. And who was U.S. Secretary of State in charge of 
facilitating this aid? Cyrus D. Vance, who before his appoint- 
ment as Secretary of State was also a partner in Simpson, 
Thacher and Bartlett. 

Senator Clifford P. Case was a member of the firm of Simp- 
son, Thacher and Bartlett from 1928 to 1953, when he 
became president of the Fund for the Republic, the founda- 
tion that funded the study for a "new constitution" so 
desired by the elite. 

Yet another memorandum from William Boyce Thompson 
(director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and 
Chase Bank) to Lloyd George (prime minister of Great 
Britain) in December 1917, supported the Bolsheviks and 
admitted in part: 

About the overthrow of the last Kerensky government 
we materially aided the dissemination of the Bolshevik 


literature, distributing it through agents and by aero- 
planes to the German army. If the suggestion is permis- 
sible, it might be well to consider whether it would not be 
desirable to have this same Bolshevik literature sent into 
Germany and Austria across the West and Italian fronts. 

Does this sound as if Wall Street and the Bolsheviks were 
enemies? Or allies? 

Another excellent example of the capitalist-communist alli- 
ance is Gulf Oil in Angola, the financial backer of the Neto 
government, while Cuban troops protect Gulfs Cabinda pro- 
duction facilities. 

And how about Armand Hammer, chairman of Occidental 
Petroleum? In the Russian edition of Lenin's Collected 
Works, you will find several letters from Lenin to Hammer 
addressed affectionately as "Dear Comrade." Capitalists, the 
big enemy of communists? Nonsense. They work hand-in- 
glove to rule the world. 

And in 1994 inside history is not too much different to 

It has not gone unnoticed that politicians make election 
promises that are abandoned when they enter office. 

President Bill Clinton, a Trilateralist, is a prime example. 
Election promises to reduce bureaucracy, to protect indivi- 
dual privacy, to reduce the power of the elite and lobbyists 
and similar populist scenarios have all been abandoned. 

And a series of declassified FBI documents illustrates the 
behind-the-scenes origins of many Clinton appointments. 
They are evenly divided between associates and supporters of 
the Institute for Policy Studies, a pro-Marxist think tank, and 
multinational professional lobbyists. The co-directors of the 
transition team were both Trilaterals: Warren Christopher 
and Vernon Jordan; and both were big time lobbyists. Then 
came a series of appointments reflecting Marxist-leaning 
Washington think tank persons (mostly from the Institute 
for Policy Studies, i.e. Anthony Lake, Leon Panetta, Morton 
Halperin) and/or big time lobbyists (Ron Brown, Warren 
Christopher), and revolving door insiders (Winston Lord, 
David Gergen, Bruce Babbitt). 


The only truly non- Washington appointment is Attorney 
General Reno, who has proven herself adept at squashing 
investigations and actions that might embarrass the 
Administration — BCCI, Brown bribe investigation, 
Whitewater affair, Waco. . . 

The key to understanding world events is to look at the 
world in terms of a Marxist Ruling-Class Alliance. Then, 
seemingly inconsistent actions and events make sense: 

• The elite subsidizes Marxist regimes: they are not 

• The elite abandons free enterprise allies: it wants 

• The elite presses for more individual taxation, that is, the 
Marxist "graduated income tax." 

• The elite reduces its own taxation in the same way that 
the Moscow elite lived it up in Soviet Russia at the 
expense of the Russian working class. 

The textbook modern history is illusory because it is based 
on a mythical capitalist- versus-communist struggle. 

Thus, when we are asked to believe that Trilateral 
ambitions are morally justified to build a New World Order 
devoted to the peace and welfare of mankind, two points 
strike us: (a) this end does not coincide with other interpreta- 
tions of Trilateral motivations and actions, and (b) the means 
adopted appear authoritarian and suggest that the ends may 
also be authoritarian. 

What are some of the practical lessons we can learn from 
this alliance? 

• If you, an average American-in-the-street voter, recall the 
history of both Democrats and Republicans, can you think of 
one instance where either party kept a promise? 'Very few! 

• Our argument is that if you are a small- or medium- sized 
businessman or independent professional, then you are tar- 
geted for elimination. Does this coincide with your personal 
experience over your own working lifetime? 

• If you are a socialist, then stop deluding yourself. You are 


working hand-in-hand with the elitists you proclaim to 

• If you are interested in tax reform, then consider that the 
only acceptable tax reform is complete repeal of the Sixteenth 

To emphasize the discriminatory approach of the Carter 
administration on tax matters, we can do no better than 
quote the congressional testimony of Philip E. Vision, 
supervisory revenue officer in the Chicago District Office of 
IRS, who in 1976 blew a small whistle on IRS procedures 
before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. Congressman Jones asked Vision about 
differing treatment of rich and poor taxpayers: 

Is there pressure to seize a small business or a poor 
taxpayer's property in order to close the case, and pressure 
to perhaps settle quickly with a rich taxpayer who has 
plenty of accounting and legal ability to drag things out? 

To which IRS official Vision replied: 

In all candor, Congressman, I must say this: You will 
find those branches or groups that are involved in the 
inner city of Chicago, the low income, the closures are 
highest because there is really no problem. It requires no 
technical skills or knowledge to prepare a levy upon the 
employer of an employee who is getting take-home pay of 
about $80. We can go in, serve the levy, and take the 
entire $80. 

Certainly a taxpayer who is earning $80 could hardly 
be expected to employ an expensive attorney or CPA. 
Usually when he comes in, in response to the levy, it is 
with tears in his eyes because he allocated that $80 to the 
gas or electric company and because IRS took that 
money, his electric and gas will be shut off and also part 
of that money was intended to feed his family. This is a 
common practice. 

I am sorry to report that, but if you would look at the 
closures in the poor areas of Chicago, the depressed 
areas, you would find that the closures of the small dollar 


TDA's are overwhelmingly larger than they are in the 
affluent suburbs of Deerfield where I live. 

To fully understand the implications of a viciously gradu- 
ated income tax system aimed at the small/medium American 
businessman and the broad middle class and to understand as 
well the role of the multinationals and the international 
bankers who make up the power elite behind the Trilateral 
Commission, we need to go back to 1847 and the Communist 
Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 
Of the Communist revolution, Marx and Engels wrote: 
In the first instance, this can only be affected by 
despotic inroads upon the rights of property and by 
despotic interference with bourgeois methods of produc- 
tion; that is to say by measures which seem economically 
inadequate and untenable, but have far-reaching effects, 
and are necessary as means for revolutionizing the whole 
system of production. 

In brief, elimination of property owners and small- and 
medium-sized businessmen ("Bourgeois methods of produc- 
tion") outside the orbit of the multinationals and interna- 
tional banks is an essential prerequisite to socialism. 

Then Marx and Engels outline the famous ten "measures" 
for achieving revolution in the advanced countries to bring 
about socialism. 

These measures are described by Marx and Engels as 

In the most advanced countries they willy generally 
speaking, take the following forms: 

1. Expropriation of landed property, and the use of 
landrents to defray State expenditure. 

2. A vigorously graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of the right of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigres and rebels. 

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by 
means of a national bank with State capital and an exclu- 
sive monopoly. 


6. Centralization of the means of transport in the hands 
of the State. 

7. Increase of national factories and means of produc- 
tion, cultivation of uncultivated land, and improvement 
of cultivated land in accordance with a general plan. 

8. Universal and equal obligation to work; organization 
of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

9. Agriculture and urban industry to work hand-in- 
hand, in such a way as, by degrees, to obliterate the dis- 
tinction between town and country. 

10. Public and free education of all children. Abolition of 
factory work for children in its present form. Education 
and material production to be combined 

Notably, there is a parallel between Marx and Trilateral 
propositions: centralization of credit in IMF and the Federal 
Reserve System parallels Marx's measure 5. AMTRAK, fed- 
eral funding of rapid transit, and persistent efforts to cut 
down on use of individual automobiles parallels Marx's 
measure 6. Finally, our Sixteenth Amendment to the Consti- 
tution, the "income tax amendment," is none other than the 
"vigorously graduated income tax" proposed by Marx in the 
Manifesto. What has this to do with Trilateral multinational 
avoidance of taxation? Plenty, as it turns out. 

It is interesting to reread Karl Marx's Manifesto in the 
light of the alliance between Wall Street multinationals and 
the Communist imperialists. Marxists, especially, should 
reread Marx. The enemy of Marxist totalitarianism is not the 
capitalist but rather the "Bourgeoisie," the middle class. 
Marx sees the bourgeoisie as the source of all that is evil, yet 
he does not include all the ruling establishment in those 
designated for elimination. To the contrary, when the class 
war is about to be fought to a finish, Karl Marx envisaged a 
curious event: "a small part of the ruling class breaks away to 
make common cause with the revolutionary class, the class 
which holds the future in its hands." 

In sum, Marx envisaged a coalition of ruling interests of the 


revolutionary Marxists and a segment of the ruling class. 
This is precisely what history has recorded in the hundred or 
so years since the Manifesto was published. One of the most 
significant forces in modern world development has been the 
assistance from a relatively small yet powerful part of the 
ruling Western establishment to the Soviet Union channeled 
through such influential organizations as the Council on 
Foreign Relations (CFR) and today the Trilateral Commis- 
sion. In Marx's terms, are not Cyrus Eaton, Armand 
Hammer, David Rockefeller, and the Trilateral Commission 
ruling class breakaways? Have not Marxists and the "break- 
away ruling class capitalists" joined hands to eliminate the 
American middle class? Unfortunately, academic analysts are 
blind to the implications of the alliance: they read Marx with 
preconceptions. So let's present some evidence. 

In 1976, the Marxist government of Angola reorganized 
Diamang, its diamond-producing monopoly. The Neto Marx- 
ist government will own 60.8 percent, and the balance will be 
owned by the former foreign corporate owners. It will be a 
mixed company. But which former owners will be expropri- 
ated to make way for the new Marxist shareholders? Not the 
big greedy capitalists we hear so much about in socialist 
literature, but, in the words of the Neto government, "a large 
number of small shareholders." The major "foreign com- 
panies," the large multinationals, that is, the ruling 
capitalists, will not be affected by the takeover. In other 
words, the ruling class joins hands with Marxist revolution- 
aries against the small bourgeois owners. 




Trilateral have a fondness for declaring "war" on world prob- 
lems. We have a "war on cancer," a "war on crime," a "war on 
drugs," a "war on AIDS" and so on. 

What we find within these "wars" are policies designed to 
advance Trilateral world objectives. Peace and individual 
freedom are certainly not the objectives, nor in many cases do 
we identify any contribution to human welfare. 

In this chapter we consider (a) the "war on AIDS" and 
(b) the "war on drugs." In each case we unearth a story very 
different from the establishment media official line intended 
for public consumption. 

According to Dr. Robert Gallo and other establishment AIDS 
researchers, this deadly disease with the capability to wipe 
out the world originated with a little green monkey in Africa 
who bit a native with disastrous results. Believe it or not, 
establishment scientists either push this absurd, unproven 
argument or dismiss origins as irrelevant. 

There is another argument, backed by hard evidence and 
reflected in five books by respected medical doctors. Briefly, 
this argument is that AIDS is a man-made disease developed 
by the U.S. Army as part of a biological warfare program, 


funded by Congress and released by elitist fanatics to elimin- 
ate specific segments of the world's population. 

Horrific as genocide by global fanatics may appear, there is 
more evidence for this interpretation than for the little green 
monkey theory. 

Even more horrendous, this argument takes us right to Tri- 
lateralist Robert S. McNamara, former Secretary of State and 
Chairman of the World Bank. It was McNamara who ap- 
proved funding for development of an artificial AIDS virus 
later funded by Congress. 

Here's the story based on the research of these five doctors 
which we supplemented with our own research for documen- 
tary evidence. 

We previously published our assessment in THE PHOENIX 
LETTER edited by this author in November 1992 and Decem- 
ber 1993. 1 We reprint the following from the December 1993 
issue. Further documentation may be found in the November 
1992 issue. 

Fort Detrich Biological Programs In The '60s 

Fort Detrich in Maryland is the U.S. biological warfare 
base. Originally called U.S. Army Biological Labora- 
tories it is now labeled U.S. Army Medical Research 
Institute of Infectious Diseases (US AMRIID). 

The Army maintains a Special Operations Division 
(SOD) on the Fort Detrich base with a formal operating 
agreement with CIA (memorandum signed in May 1952). 
Both CIA and Army have covered their tracks well but 
some original documents survive to outline a horrific 

In the early '60s U.S. Army SOD personnel used speci- 
ally designed suitcases to spray unsuspecting American 
civilians with bacillus subtilis at the Greyhound Bus 
Terminals in Washington, Chicago and San Francisco. 

1 Available from THE PHOENIX LETTER, Suite 216C, 1517 14th Street West, 
Billings, MT 59102; $87 for one year. THE PHOENIX LETTER, now in its 12th 
year, is a report on abuse of power. 


Similar operations were conducted at airports in Wash- 
ington D.C., New York, Boston and Los Angeles. The 
number of one way tickets sold at time of release was 
used to estimate distribution of the bacterial agents. 
(Bacillus subtilis can be bought at biological supply 
houses. It is not listed as a pathogen, but can cause res- 
piratory infections, blood poisoning and food poisoning.) 

According to declassified Army documents the Grey- 
hound terminals in San Francisco and Chicago were the 
location for "six operatives to launch covert attacks" 
spread over 7 days. Specially designed suitcases sprayed 
bacteria into crowded terminals for maximum exposure. 
Photographs were taken and other Army personnel 
"covertly collected air samples in close proximity to the 
passengers" to determine if the civilians had been 
infected (See photographs.) 

Later tests were repeated with smallpox agents, grown 
in large quantities and converted to a lethal powder for 
spraying. Senate investigation in 1975 revealed close 
cooperation between SOD and CIA: 

"CIA associaiton with Fort Detrich involved the Spe- 
cial Operations Division (SOD) of that facility. This 
division was responsible for developing special applica- 
tions for biological warfare agents and toxins. Its prin- 
cipal customer was the U.S. Army. Its concern was with 
the development of both suitable agents and delivery 
mechanisms for use in paramilitary situations. Both 
standard biological warfare agents and biologically 
derived toxins were investigated by the division." 

The Senate Committee found the CIA had covered its 
tracks to conceal this unconstitutional activity from the 
American public. The Senate Committee stated, "Al- 
though some CIA originated documents have been 
found in the project files it is clear that only a very 
limited documentation of activities took place." 

An extract from a U.S. Army report details why small- 
pox was selected as the "agent of choice." Its 
"attractive" features are listed as: 


1. Smallpox is highly infectious with close contact It 
spreads readily from an infected person to susceptible 

2. A long incubation period of relatively constant dura- 
tion permits the operatives responsible to leave the 
country before the first case is diagnosed 

3. The duration of illness for those who recover is 
relatively long. 

Although the Federal Government claims that the 
1972 treaty banning biological weapons stopped further 
use of Fort Detrich we know that the U.S. Army applied 
for $1.4 million appropriation to EXPAND germ warfare 
testing ability in the early 1980s. Senator James Sasser 
objected and it is unlikely that the appropriation went 
through. It could have been handled on the "black 

The Originator of AIDS 

In July 1969 Dr. MacArthur, Director of the U.S. Army 
Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) appeared 
before Congress (the Appropriations Committee of the 
House) and stated: "within a period of 5-10 years it would 
be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an 
agent that does not naturally exist and for which no 
natural immunity could have been acquired. 

This synthetic agent is AIDS (Acquired Immune 
Deficiency syndrome virus or HIV-1). ARPA requested 
$10 million to develop AIDS, 10 years before the virus 
was identified in the field 

Dr. MacArthur added, "It is a highly controversial 
issue and there are many who believe such research 
should not be undertaken lest it lead to another method 
of massive killing of large populations." 

From 1961 to 1968 while this artificial biological agent 
was under discussion in the Pentagon, Trilateral Robert 
McNamara was Secretary of Defense. Clark Clifford (of 
BCCI notoriety) took over as Secretary in 1969. 
(Emphasis added.) 


On October 2, 1970, just 15 months after Dr. 
MacArthur requested an appropriation for AIDS devel- 
opment, Robert McNamara, now World Bank President, 
made a speech to international bankers in which he 
identified population growth as "the gravest issue that 
the world faces over the years ahead." 

In his speech to the bankers, McNamara argued that 
population growth was leading to instability, that a 10 
billion world population would not be "controllable." 

Said McNamara, "It is not a world that any of us 
would want to live in. Is such a world inevitable? It is not 
sure but there are two possible ways by which a world of 
10 billion people can be averted Either the current birth 
rates must come down more quickly or the current death 
rates must go up. There is no other way." 

In brief, Robert McNamara was in the final decision- 
making role for development of AIDS at the very time he 
was contemplating the idea that "world death rates must 
go up." This is more than coincidence. 

Our conclusion is that Trilateralist Robert McNamara 
knowingly encouraged development of AIDS as a means 
to reduce the world's population. It is difficult to arrive 
at any other conclusion, 

Soviet Union Charges Pentagon 
With AIDS Development 

This information became known to the Soviets and in 
October 1985 the Soviet Union mounted a worldwide 
propaganda campaign, AIDS had been manufactured at 
Fort Detrich, Maryland by the Pentagon, The initial 
information was planted in a Soviet-backed newspaper in 
India and then surfaced in more than 30 media sources 
worldwide. The report was backed by an East German 
report by Professor Jacob Segal of Humbolt University, 
East Berlin. Segal argued that the AIDS virus is "the 
product of an abortive experiment carried out at a 
laboratory to develop biological warfare means." 
This Soviet propaganda campaign was discounted in 


the West (this editor included). It was beyond the realm 
of rationality that the U.S. would develop a killer agent 
such as AIDS. Professor Segal appears to hold the view 
that it was "accidental," i.e. an "abortive experiment." 
This position we also held for a while, until the 
McNamara speech of October 1970 surfaced. 

In any event, in the late 80's the U.S. State Depart- 
ment ran a rebuttal campaign to the Soviet charges. 
However, State was unaware that the Congress had 
published Dr. MacArthur's requests and statements so 
the rebuttal fell flat on its face. The State Department, for 
example, claims the U.S. Army had never used Fort 
Detrich as a biological warfare base. This is just not true. 
Further, State apparently had no knowledge of the 
McNamara contemplation of raising death rates by 


1. CIA-U.S. Army undertook field tests with bacillus 
subtilis and smallpox against American civilians. 

2. There is no question that the Army received funds 
from Congress for AIDS development and this was prob- 
ably undertaken at Fort Detrich. 

The AIDS release could have been accidental but we 
discount this for several reasons. Initial cases came from 
Africa and Haiti, not the United States. Second, Robert 
McNamara had simultaneously called for increase in 
world death rates. This suggests a deliberate policy of 
controlled release of the AIDS virus. 

3. The Soviets obtained the information and used it for 
a propaganda campaign. The State Department rebuttal 
was ineffective because State had no idea how much 
information had already been made public. 


Extract from House of Representatives Department of 
Defense Appropriations for 1970 Hearings Part 5, 1969 

129 -Tuesday, July 1,1969 

There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to men- 
tion. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a 
field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that 
within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic 
biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no 
natural immunity could have been acquired. 

Mr. Sikes. Are we doing any work in that field? 

Dr. MacArthur. We are not. 

Mr. Sikes. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest? 
Dr. MacArthur. Certainly not lack of interest. 

Mr. Sikes. Would you provide for our records information on what 
would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be, the 
time and the cost involved? 

Dr. MacArthur. We will be very happy to. 

(The information follows:) 

The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to 
investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group 
of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations: 

1. All biological agents up to the present time are representatives of naturally 
occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are 
easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive 

2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new 
infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any 
known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be 
refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend 
to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. 

3. A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be completed in ap- 
proximately 6 years at a total cost of $10 million. 

4. It would be very difficult to establish such a program. Molecular biology is a 
relatively new science. There are not many highly competent scientists in the field. 
Almost all are in university laboratories, and they are generally adequately sup- 
ported from sources other than DOD. However, it was considered possible to initi- 
ate an adequate program through the National Academy of Sciences - National 
Research Council (NAS-NRC). 

The matter was discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were made to 
initiate the program. However, decreasing funds in CB, growing criticism of the CB 
program, and our reluctance to involve the NAS-NRC in such a controversial 
endeavor have led us to postpone it for the past 2 years. 

It is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research 
should not be undertaken lest it lead to yet another method of massive killing of 
large populations. On the other hand, without the sure scientific knowledge that 
such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of the ways it could be done, there 
is little that can be done to devise defensive measures. Should an enemy develop it 
there is little doubt that this is an important area of potential military technological 
inferiority in which there is no adequate research program. 


Reprinted from a cartoon by Steve Benson in the Thursday, 
January 6, 1994 edition of the Arizona Republic. 


Pravda: October 31, 1986 

"The AIDS virus, a terrible disease with no cure was, accord- 
ing to western researchers, created in Pentagon laboratories." 

(At Bottom) "Pentagon SPIDtsialist" (In Russian, a play on 
the words "SPID" and "specialist.") 


For more information see: 

(1) Lorraine Day, M.D., AIDS: What the Government Isn't 
Telling You, Rockford Press, P.O. Box 952, Rancho Mirage, 
CA 92270; $26. 

(2) Alan CantweD, M.D., Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Geno- 
cide Plot, Aries Rising Press, P.O. Box 29532, Los Angeles, 
CA 90029; $15.50. Dr. Cantwell is a gay dermatologist and 
can hardly be accused of anti-gay writing. 

(3) Stanley Monteith, M.D., AIDS: The Unnecessary Epi- 
demic, $18 from AIDS Book, 618 Frederick Street, Santa 
Cruz, CA 95062. 


The war on drugs is a farce. The "war" has had no effect on 
the supply of drugs, has not reduced demand for drugs, but 
has definitely been used to fund covert programs not author- 
ized by Congress and to line individual official pockets. 

Under the Bush and Clinton administrations, the national 
"war on drugs" is a shoot- from-the-hip stumbling failure and 
a waste of taxpayer funds. This is not only a personal conclu- 
sion, it is a conclusion reached by police chiefs, medical 
researchers, sociologists, psychologists, syndicated column- 
ists and even by politicians. One can be excused if the conclu- 
sion is reached that the "war" is designed to fail 

What went wrong? 

• No one in any administration bothered to identify the 
problem in a realistic manner. . . each administration reacted 
in panic from a public outcry, unthinking and too late. 

• The drug abuse problem involves perhaps 20 million Ame- 
ricans. Tsar Bennett wanted to build prisons to accommodate 
these 20 million errant citizens. . .but without facilities for 
cures. Additionally Bennett proposed gun control, curtailing 
civil rights and foster homes for children of abusers. 

• Two-thirds of the drug fighting budget is spent on mili- 
tary excursions... in Latin America and Colombia. . . also in 


Humboldt County, California, where for the first time 
possibly since the Civil War American troops have been used 
against Americans. 

• Of every ten aircraft intercepted, only one is a drug 
runner. . . the other nine are innocents. 

• A war of words is fought with incomplete, sometimes 
false, research information. 

• The end result of the Bush-Clinton war has been more 
violence, more homicides, an increase in drug use. . . and of 
course an increase in headline-catching drug busts. 

Some capsule comments: 

Washington D.C. Police Chief Isaac Fulwood: "Bennett 
spends his time talking, not doing anything. Bennett's ap- 
proach is absolutely wrong. I don't even know if he has an 
approach. " 

Washington D.C. Police Executive Research Forum (a 
think tank reflecting major city police chiefs): "A clear need 
exists to expand and intensify the inquiry into both the medi- 
cal aspects of drug abuse and the efficacy of our current 

If we had space we could print scores of critical comments 
from the medical side. Here's a couple of typical comments: 

Medical drug specialists are caustic in their criticism of on- 
going programs. Says Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medi- 
cal School: "These ads (anti-drug ads) are totally irresponsible 
and they're scaring kids. When kids realize they've been had 
and not been told the truth, they'll backfire. " 

The general assessment is that the program is a failure: Sta- 
tistician Susan Nissenbaum (California Department of Drug 
and Alcohol Programs), "The general consensus is that we're 
beginning to see an increase in the heroin problem. " 

The latest medical research suggests that certain brain 
irregularities make some people much quicker to become 
addicted than others. . . and much harder to cure. Extensive 
well-controlled research suggests that some addicts take 
drugs to repair a defective brain chemistry, that persons 
subject to depression, anger, restlessness find the first dose of 
the drug immensely reinforcing, i.e. they are biologically pre- 


disposed to a specific drug. Reports Ralph Tarter, a psycholo- 
gist at the Western Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh, many 
recovering drug abusers "tell me the moment I took my first 
drug I felt normal for the first time." 

The New York Times (June 26, 1990) had an extensive 
article on biological predisposition. More generally, 
Newsweek (January 29, 1990) commented: "After nine 
months the model for national action has turned out to be 
only a nasty battle of words." 

A predictable by-product of the Bennett war has been a 
distinct increase in violence and a dramatic increase in drug- 
related homicides. The undeniable increase in drug-related 
homicides is reported from New York, Miami, Houston, 
Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Oakland, Califor- 
nia, for example, tabulated 88 homicides by July 1990 (as 
opposed to 148 for all 1989) and 37 percent were drug related 

Another neglected aspect is that Valium and codeine, legal- 
ly prescribed, are among the most addictive drugs and cause 
as many medical problems as illegally acquired drugs. 

An increasing reaction has been a demand for legaliza- 
tion ... to place cocaine and heroin on a par with cigarettes 
and alcohol, freely available with tax revenues going to the 
government instead of the dope dealers. 

This would certainly put the dealers out of business, and 
there would be no supply side left for the military excursion 
tactic. However, it would not solve the medical problem: if cer- 
tain people are biologically disposed to drugs, then given the 
existing totally inadequate cure facilities we would end up with 
a medical overload instead of a legal enforcement overload 

Here the information is inadequate... we just don't know 
too much about how business losses are generated in relation 
to drugs. Is it the pressure to obtain money for drugs that 
leads to theft, embezzlement and inefficiency or do the drugs 
themselves make for the inefficiency? This is a significant 
point: in one case legalization would lead to fewer business 
losses, in the other it would lead to even more inefficiency. 

In brief: the shoot-from-the-hip Bush-Clinton approach 
wholly underestimates the complexity of the drug abuse 



However, the program does achieve what has long been 
feared. . . curtailment of human rights and constitutional 
rights, military action against Americans by Americans, 
prison camps for large numbers of Americans, domestic 
street violence... all under the name of fighting drug abuse. 

What's Happening at the Street Level 

IF the Bush-Clinton anti-drug crusade had been successful, 
supply would have dried up at the street level and prices sky- 
rocketed This has not come about. 

COCAINE is in plentiful supply. Police Departments 
around the country confirm this finding. Price dropped right 
after Bennett was appointed (as suppliers emptied their 
pipelines). Prices have now stabilized. 

Police Chief Fulwood (Washington, D.C.) states: "We 
haven't seen any decrease in availability of drugs." A conti- 
nent away from Washington D.C, this author was walking 
along Market Street, San Francisco, and saw a stocky white 
male at the corner of Powell and Market, where the tourists 
congregate for cable cars. . . who was shouting, "Powder, 
Rocks" (i.e., cocaine "powder" and crack "rocks"). This in 
broad daylight! 

HEROIN supply has increased and price has dropped sub- 
stantially. Here's a chart from Drug Enforcement Agency: 
bought openly on the 
street in any large U.S. 

of domestic manufac- 
ture have increased in 

kilogram inside United 

Enforcement Agency, Field 
Intelligence Reports 


Average Price per Kilctgrnm in S (thousands) 
□Chkago ■ Los Angeles •Miami New York 

The war on drugs has squeezed a balloon at a billion dollar 
cost. The effect has been to partly shift the drug of choice 
among users, away from cocaine to heroin. 

Street violence has increased. We have overwhelmed police 
departments, the court system and our prisons. . . for what? 
For every dealer jailed another opens up shop... 70 percent 
of our prison population is drug related. Supply curtailment is 
a failure. 

In November 1993 the CBS-TV program 60 Minutes pro- 
duced dramatic evidence that our analysis is right on. DEA 
officials, including former DEA Chief Judge Bonner charged 
the CIA with importing one ton of pure cocaine in a single 
transaction from Venezuela. This was sold on American 

This same CIA operation created the drug trafficking net- 
work in Haiti with "intelligence network" used as a cover and 
operating under General Cedras. 

One thousand pounds of the 1990 Venezuelan shipment 
was seized at the Miami Airport. DEA and Customs investi- 
gators were ordered to back off because the cocaine was im- 
ported with the approval of the United States Government. 

Moreover, Department of Justice knew about the shipment 
and did nothing. Senator Boren (Skull & Bones) knew about 
the shipment and did nothing. A Senator who represents the 
people of the United States closed his eyes. 

Only a few officials at DEA did their job! Culminating in 
the 1993 CBS program. 

(No U.S. newspaper printed this information until New 
York Times 11/20/93. Phoenix Letter picked up some facts 
years ago, including information not on the CBS program, 
through the Caracas, Venezuela newspaper El Universal) 

The point is this, if one has knowledge of a drug shipment 
going to the United States, then legally one is required to 
report the facts. That means every one of these knowledge- 
able officials in CIA, Justice and State, plus Senator Boren, 
are guilty of trafficking. 

The street dealers who sold this one ton of pure cocaine 
were no doubt routinely picked up and sentenced. The offi- 


rials should also go to jail. After all, if a $20 street sale earns a 
prison sentence then so should importing one ton of pure 

What has happened? You guessed it! Nothing. 

The White House is protecting everyone, which, given Tri- 
lateralist Clinton's involvement in Mena, Arkansas cocaine 
trafficking, should not surprise us. Senator Boren is protected 
by fellow Senators. We don't hear any calls for investigation 
of the Boren role. 

The ranking CIA official, Mark McFarlin, resigned. No 
charges filed. 

The assistant CIA official in charge of the shipment was 
"disciplined," no charges filed. All State and Justice officials 
have been protected. 

What's the law? Here it is, as outlined by a Senior DEA 
official: "If you are part of a drug shipment, and you have 
knowledge that it is going to the United States, you are 

"Culpable?" Yes, culpable of drug trafficking. 

So where is Attorney Janet Reno? Do we have a Constitu- 
tion or have we become just another Banana State petty dic- 
tatorship? One rule for the peasants and another for the 

Phoenix Letter has reported scores of government criminal 
activities over its 14 year history. Omaha child abuse, sup- 
pressed technology, taxpayer rip-offs, BCCI murder and cor- 
ruption, prominent officials involved in corruption and 
bribery, unsafe aircraft design, weather control, government 
lies, treason, unconstitutional political policies and so on. 

We do not recall any instance where government has acted 
honestly and brought right and honesty into the equation. 
The reaction has always been more cover up until the victim 
becomes the culprit. 

Today the United States is governed by a bunch of amoral 
whining money grubbers whose only concern is to keep intact 
their position at the public trough. 

The key point for Trilaterals Over America is that almost 
one-third of the American members of the Trilateral Commis- 


sion have been appointed by Presidents from Carter to 

The dominant policy influence since the 1970s has been a 
Trilateral influence. These people have a written policy for 
guidance. The credit for all U.S. policies in the past several 
decades, including these absurd "wars" on problems, is defin- 
itely with the Trilateral Commission. 

There is significant evidence published over the last two 
decades that the U.S. Government is involved in drug traf- 
ficking and that this trafficking is more than an accident. 

The largest cocaine laboratory in Bolivia was built and 
operated by CIA. Lt. Colonel "Bo" Gritz has charged and pro- 
duced evidence that the Golden Triangle, largest producer of 
heroin, has ties to Washington, D.C. 1 We know that CIA 
financed the Afghan rebels and the Nicaraguan "contras" 
through drug sales. There are in fact scores of such in- 
stances .... in brief, a large portion of trafficking is operated 
under official Washington approval. 

And we have demonstrated that Washington, D.C, since 
the 1970s, has been under the control of Trilateralists. . . and 
not coincidentally the "drug problem," the so-called "war on 
drugs," has been with us since the late 1970s. 

It was Trilateralist Henry Kissinger who developed "crisis 
management" — that crises can be used to move the world to 
New World Order. The multibillion dollar "war on drugs" is a 
brilliant example of "crisis management" — and will continue 
until the voting public insists that the "war" be closed down 
and the multibillions wasted are returned to the taxpayers. 

1 See Appendix below. 




Examinations of appointments to both the Carter and Clin- 
ton Administrations show that Trilaterals do the choosing 
and essentially run administrations. 

Remarkably both Carter and Clinton ran on a platform em- 
phasizing anti-Establishment policies while immediately and 
without hesitation appointing establishment representatives 
and then conducting long time establishment policies. 

The duplicitous procedures of both administrations is re- 
markable for its parallels rather than differences: both Carter 
and Clinton lied during the election process and told the elec- 
torate only what the electorate wanted to hear. When gaining 
office both Presidents proceeded to do the opposite in many 
cases to the policy promised during the election. 

Reagan and to a lesser extent Bush were more consistent in 
that policy tended to follow promises. However, both these 
Presidents also lied before and after taking office. 

If politicians in the United States complain they are held 
in low regard they have only themselves to blame. What we 
find extraordinary is that common sense suggests voters 
would turn to third parties. So far the electorate has been 
convinced that a third party could not win, without even 
considering the probability that a strong third party vote 
would at least bring some honesty to the morally bankrupt 
Democrats and Republicans. 


A very large proportion of the electorate is now sitting on its 
hands, not voting. If this silent and considerable segment ever 
acts in unity, there will be a political revolution in the United 
States, and New World Order will take a massive tumble. 

The creation of a Carter administration image of anti- 
Establishmentarianism while simultaneously creating a Tri- 
lateral administration is typically the deceptive operational 
approach taken by this self-appointed elite. Take the first half 
dozen appointments and look at their associations and allegi- 
ances. The administration was at some pains to show a com- 
petition for posts and promoted the idea that anti-Establish- 
ment and non-Establishment persons would be appointed. 
See, for example, the Wall Street Journal on 2 December 1976 
concerning the meeting of 16 candidates in Plains, Georgia. 
The initial sequence of appointments went like this: 

Appointment Number 1 - Bertram Lance: president of Na- 
tional Bank of Georgia (Atlanta) to be director of Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). This is a vital, central post 
for plans to centralize the U.S. economy. 

Appointment Number 2 - Cyrus Vance. Secretary of State, 
Trilateralist. At the time of taking office, Vance was a partner 
in Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett; a director of IBM, Pan 
American World Airways and Aetna Life Insurance; a mem- 
ber of the Democratic party, Foreign Policy Task Force, 
Council on Foreign Relations (vice-chairman of the board), 
and the Trilateral Commission; and also a former deputy 
director of defense. 

Appointment Number 3 - W. Michael Blumenthal: Secretary 
of Treasury. Also a Trilateralist. Who is Blumenthal? Like 
Henry Kissinger, he was born in Germany and came to the 
U.S. at the age of 21. At the time of taking office, he was 
chairman of Bendix Corporation and formerly in the Kennedy 
administration as deputy for the secretary for economic affairs, 
member of the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on 
Foreign Affairs, and the Initiative Committee for National 
Economic Planning (with Irwin Miller and Robert McNamara.) 

After this third appointment, there was definite feedback in 
newspapers and radio that the "liberals" felt they had been 


betrayed because appointments and rumors of appointments 
did not include them. The result? Jane Cahill Pfeiffer, vice 
president of IBM, strongly pushed for commerce secretary as 
Appointment Number 4, dropped out, and the next two ap- 
pointments went to big government liberals: 

Appointment Number 4 - Brock Adams: transportation sec- 
retary. Also a Trilateralist. 

Appointment Number 5 - Congressman Andrew Young as 
Ambassador to the United Nations. Trilateral 

Appointment Number 6 - Zbigniew Brzezinski: executive 
director of Trilateral Commission, was appointed national 
security adviser. Who is Brzezinski? By explicit statement, 
Trilateralists reject the Constitution and the democratic 
political process; in Between Two Ages, Brzezinski (Carter's 
sixth appointment) wrote as follows: 

The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the 
Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a 
national constitutional convention to reexamine the na- 
tion's formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 
1989 — the two hundredth anniversary of the Constitu- 
tion — could serve as a suitable target date culminating a 
national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrange- 
ments. . . Realism, however, forces us to recognize that 
the necessary political innovation will not come from 
direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. 
The needed change is more likely to develop incremental- 
ly and less overtly. . . in keeping with the American tra- 
dition of blurring distinctions between public and private 

According to Huntington of Foreign Policy magazine, an 
"election coalition" may be abandoned after political office 
has been achieved; a politician does not have to keep his word 
to the electorate. Jimmy Carter is a supreme example of Trila- 
teralism in practice. When Brzezinski refers to "develop(ing) 
incrementally and less overtly" he is specifically recommend- 
ing a deceptive "salami-type" approach to abandonment of 
the Constitution. Perhaps some readers may consider this to 
be the essence of subversion. If so, they had better do some- 


thing about it, because no one in Congress has yet plucked up 
enough courage to even call for an investigation of 

Clinton Abandons "Election Coalition" 

Trilateral Huntington's dictum that a politician may aban- 
don the "election coalition" after election to office, i.e., a 
politician may break his promises, has bypassed our jour- 
nalist investigators. 

Jimmy Carter broke promises right and left without much 
of a squeak from anyone. There appears to be a joint Demo- 
crat-Republican compact to ignore the "election coalition" 
and keep out third parties, which is about as close as you can 
get to dictatorship without abandoning the Constitution. 

In January 1993, the same month Clinton took office, our 
newsletter, The Phoenix Letter, (a Report on the Abuse of 
Power) carried the following front page article: 

Clinton Reeks of Conflict of Interest 

The American public has been suckered. . . again! 

Among the lavish Clinton promises to fix everything from 
health care to the deficit was above all a commitment to run 
the thieves and crooks out of Washington. 

Well, we have news for Clinton voters. Clinton was backed 
by the thieves and crooks and has appointed the self-same 
lobbyists he swore to run out of town to run the transition 
team. The political con game has become so blatant that 
Presidents don't even wait until the ink is dry on the ballot to 
break their promises. 

Before the election, we identified the background of 
Clinton's key financial backer, none other than Jackson 
Stephens, a founder of the Bank for Crooks and Criminals 
(BCCI), and the man who actually introduced Democratic 
elder statesman, Clark Clifford, to the BCCI crowd. 

We figure that one way or another, Stephens contributed 
$2 million to the Clinton campaign. And we are supposed to 


believe that the BCCI whitewash won't continue! 

Then we looked at Clinton's transition team and found it 
headed and staffed by Washington lawyers and lobbyists, the 
very people that Clinton said he would remove, those whose 
client lists and board directorships covered just about every 
major corporation and many foreign countries. 

Who is represented in Washington? You and I? Not likely. 

Many of the transition team clients have matters pending 
before regulatory bodies and the Congress itself. Then to 
emphasize the hypocrisy, the transition team introduced new 
ethics "rules" to supposedly limit "the influence of lobbyists" 
and to be rigidly enforced. All well and good, except that at 
time of writing, it has been impossible to obtain a set of these 
rules. (Released December 10, see below.) 

During the election, Clinton repeatedly called for limits on 
lobbyists. "We've got to clean it up. We're all going to have to 
change," said candidate Clinton. 

"Business as usual," says elected Clinton. 

A Huge Scaly Serpent Crawling 
Through the Corridors of Congress 

Politicians, lobbyists, college professors of political science 
and their textbooks all tell us that lobbying is essential, a 
necessary function of society to make democracy work. 

The conventional view is that lobbying is harmless and 
useful in that it makes all viewpoints heard. 

Hogwash! Individual voting citizens are those represented 
in Congress by their elected representatives. Congressmen 
and women are not elected by corporations or foreign inter- 
ests, they are elected by individual American voters. It is 
American citizens that are elected, not the dairy interests or 
the water interests or the welfare interests of some way off 
foreign country. Certainly Joe Dairy Farmer has representa- 
tion as an individual, but the collected interests have no col- 
lective vote and should have no representation in Congress. 

In practice, lobbying has become the conduit for pressure 
groups. And every so-called reform has left gigantic loopholes 


to continue the process of lobbying. Lobbyists now place 
money on both sides (Democrat and Republican) and fight 
smaller parties because they would then have to lay out 
money on more parties to guarantee representation. 

The political process has become an outright fraud. The 
individual American has become disenfranchised. The power 
groups and foreign interests have become power holders 
working through a compliant Congress. 

And from what we can see, the "new" Congress will be little 
different from the old. 

Reportedly, Clinton was shocked at the public reaction to 
the appointed transition team, and instructed staff to draft 
lobbying rules. These rules were drafted and succeeded only 
in rejecting one transition aide from one meeting for conflict 
of interest. Even then the Clinton White House refused to 
release copy of the new "rules" until December 10. 

The transition director, Trilateralist Warren M. Chris- 
topher, is senior partner in O'Melveny and Myers, with a 
heavy Far East client list including Mitsui, Sumitomo Trust, 
Japan Airlines and Hyundai. Christopher has more interest in 
representing Japanese interests than the American down 
home. In fact, just to illustrate the hypocrisy, during the 
campaign, Clinton pointedly criticized American law firms 
who work for foreign interests. 

Once elected, Clinton picked on this foremost representa- 
tive of foreign interests to act as director of the transition. 

Warren Christopher is on the board of Lockheed Aircraft 
but is not (under the Clinton rules) in conflict of interest on 
military matters in the Clinton Administration. The Clinton 
rules do not bar Christopher from discussing Asian matters 
on behalf of his clients. 

What is the Clinton defense to such charges? Simply that 
there is no conflict of interest because the connection between 
these officials' advice and their ability to profit is "too 
diffuse" and that Mr. Clinton, not his transition advisors, will 
make the final decisions. 

Lobbyists themselves are under no illusion that the "rules" 
have not changed The firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow pub- 


lishes a newsletter in which it openly boasts of its contacts 
within the Democratic Party and Washington power circles, 
and indeed has two partners close to the Democratic Party: 
Democratic Party Chief Ron Brown and Thomas Boggs. 

Then we find Lefitia Chambers, who is transition overseer 
on budget issues, who in real life is lobbyist for AFL-CIO, 
home builders and senior citizens. 

The results of this system can be seen in billion dollar 
wasteful expenditures: 

• The State of Virginia, as reported in November Phoenix 
Letter, has a disproportionate share of Federal funds guided 
to Virginia by the "King of Pork." 

• Extraordinary waste of money in technical expenditures: 
for example, the billion dollar "Hot fusion" program. 

• Neglect of programs that have no powerful voice in 
Congress. Most of the "future technology" reported in FTIR 
(Future Technology Intelligence Report, P.O. Box 423652, 
San Francisco, CA 94142-3652) is ignored by financiers. 

The rules announced on December 10 and hailed by obser- 
vers as pathbreaking are no more than a further whitewash. 
Officials may be personally banned from lobbying for five 
years, but what about their partners? These are exempt The 
lifetime ban on foreign company lobbying has no meaning in 
practice. The only sure fire solution is complete and final ban 
on all lobbying, except that of individual private citizens or 
their own elected representative. Corporations and law firms 
do not vote. Individuals do. When Mr. Clinton adopts this 
standard, we shall see the scaly serpent crawl back out of 
Washington, D.C. 

NAFTA — Step to New World Order 

Multinationals well represented on the Trilateral Commission 
aim to dominate world production and trade. 

The enormous pressure behind the NAFTA agreement, to 
bring the U.S., Mexico and Canada into a tariff-free commun- 
ity, was motivated by New World Order. Little question that 
the U.S. citizen will be adversely impacted, but gains will be 


made by international firms and banks that drive NWO. 

Initial reaction was from Chiapas, Mexico, the revolt of 
Indians against Mexican authority. The Indians, already 
hard-pressed, unable to sell their coffee on the world market, 
now find that the Mexican Government support structure 
was dismantled, and their domestic corn crop could not com- 
pete against imported U.S. corn. NAFTA was the last straw. 

Another result still to emerge will be Mexican meat ex- 
ports. U.S. giant meat firms will go to Mexico to take advan- 
tage of low wages, poor safety standards and lax sanitation 
regulation. We will see a flood of imported Mexican beef, with 
the identity of U.S. firms hidden behind a Mexican import 
label. NAFTA exempts Mexico from the U.S. Import Act to 
benefit GIANT U.S. firms. NAFTA was an end-run by U.S. 
multinationals around U.S. regulation. Clinton promised to 
appoint more meat inspectors as a cover to disguise the 
reality. The end result will be to hurt smaller U.S. ranchers 
and to expose U.S. citizens to uninspected beef. 

Mexico is now highly advantageous for Trilateral firms like 
General Electric (Vice Chairman Paolo Fresco is a Trilateral), 
Motorola (Chairman George M. C. Fisher is a Trilateral), Levi 
Strauss (Robert D. Haas is a Trilateral and close to David 
Rockefeller), Mobil Corporation (Allen Murray, Chairman, is 
Trilateral), and several major pharmaceutical companies 
(Johnson and Johnson, Smith Kline Beecham). 

NAFTA will spur U.S. firms into Mexico to take advantage 
of lower regulatory standards and low wage rates. 

NAFTA is an essential part of the Trilateral plan to reduce 
U.S. living standards and transfer benefits overseas to less 
developed countries. Trilateral Clinton was able to do this 
because the media have their Trilateral members who act as 
guides for smaller circulation newspapers and stations (CNN 
Chairman W. Thomas Johnson is a Trilateral, so is Katharine 
Graham, Chairman of the Washington Post, among others). 

The U.S. citizen doesn't stand a chance, faced with this 
array of like-minded conspirators. The only way out is to vote 
for a third party candidate, read books published by small 
publishers along with newsletters, and above all, be critical 


and question statements out of Washington and your State 

If you feel up to tackling your Congressman, there are some 
do's and don'ts. 

• Don't write long complaining letters; keep to a single 
issue, short and definite. Don't insult or threaten. State the 
problem, how it affects you, and what you see as the solution. 

• Often a Congressional aide is a more effective target. Es- 
pecially if you can get a personal visit. Be persistent and 
definite. You have a vote, the lobbyist has money. Your 
representative needs both. 

• Probably an effective route is to get a group of like- 
minded citizens to invite a representative to discuss a prob- 
lem — if 20 aircraft mechanics are threatened by overseas low 
cost maintenance contracts and can get together with a 
Congressman, this will get some action. But remember, 
you're fighting the Trilateral Commission — and if your repre- 
sentative is a member (see Appendix), you might want to 
question the company he/she keeps. 

• Above all, talk to your friends, buy extra copies of this 
book (see copyright page) and similar books, pass them 
around. It's slow, but over the long haul, it works. This author 
remembers when there was no discussion at all of Trilaterals 
and establishment elitism, when to talk about a political con- 
spiracy was to be dismissed as a kook. No longer. The bulk of 
citizens these days are onto the con game. Awareness now 
needs to be translated into action. 




VICTORY! ATF flag flies over ashes of Waco compound. 



The Trilateral Commission is not the only organization 
working for New World Order in the United States. 

Much of the thinking behind Trilateralism comes from 
early concepts put forward by Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner 
with funds from South African gold and diamond mines. 
Rhodes founded the Rhodes Scholarships to bring Americans 
with specific personality traits to Oxford University for one 
year. Bill Clinton became a Rhodes scholar after studying 
under Carroll Quigley at Georgetown University. 

Carroll Quigley wrote a massive volume, Tragedy and 
Hope, which described New World Order plans. Quigley was 
not a defector; he agreed with the objectives of an Anglo- 
American New World Order. Where he parted company was 
that he believed this should be an open objective, not a closed 
secretive conspiracy. 

So the Rhodes organization and the Royal Institute for 
International Affairs in London are essential parts of the New 
World Order. The RIIA spawned the Council on Foreign 
Relations in the United States, a broader-based but still 
limited organization with the same objectives. Our observa- 
tion is that CFR has a wider range of views among its mem- 
bers, some even against New World Order, than does the 
Trilateral Commission or the RIIA. 


The interesting aspect of CFR is that David Rockefeller, 
founder of the Trilateral Commission, was long time Chair- 
man of CFR and is today Chairman Emeritus. (Appendix C 
lists the officers and directors of CFR. There is an obvious 
interlock with the Trilateral Commission.) 

Another more restricted segment of New World Order is 
the truly secret Skull & Bones Senior Society at Yale. Fifteen 
years ago this author obtained a copy of the secret member- 
ship list (a two-volume black leather-bound affair) and was 
able to analyze in depth the influence and extent of Skull & 
Bones in the U.S. government. This was published as 
America's Secret Establishment 1 and is still in print today. 

Loose Backgrounds of New World Order Types 

Almost every proponent of New World Order from its very 
earliest days has some kind of shady past certainly not in 
keeping with the high ideals professed. 

Cecil Rhodes himself was accused of deception and crook- 
ery in gaining control of the gold and diamond mines of South 
Africa. His partner, Lord Milner, was the author of the infam- 
ous "Milner Telegram" which brought about the Anglo-Boer 
War in 1899. 

The Rhodes diamond mines became the core of the DeBeers 
monopoly and still today maintains monopoly control of 
world diamonds — a model for New World Order. 

Cecil Rhodes' own image of a New World Order was hardly 
inspiring to any but Anglo Americans. The second largest 
language group in the world is Spanish speaking — and you 
won't find a single Latin in any New World Order organiza- 
tion. In fact, so far as the Trilateral Commission is concerned, 
Latins don't exist who warrant membership in the Commis- 
sion. You won't find Arabs, either, or Chinese resident in the 
Far East. 

Now this might be comforting to the English-speaking 
world but disparities of this kind are guaranteed to lead to 

1 Obtainable from Liberty House Books, P.O. Box 80650, Billings, MT 
54108-0650, for $22 postpaid. 


conflict. If Latins, Arabs, Chinese, Russians and others are 
delegated to subordinate positions in New World Order, the 
outcome will be conflict, not peace. 

Then the individual and corporate histories of Trilateral 
members and firms are hardly reassuring. We couldn't find a 
single individual or firm where some investigation had not 
been started for illegal conduct. 

Take as a random example a firm mentioned only once 
above — Prudential Securities Company. Robert C. Winters, 
Chairman of the Board of Prudential, is a Trilateral. As we go 
to press, Prudential is under investigation on several charges. 
Apparently Prudential brokers had orders to deceive custo- 
mers (New York Times, 2/28/94) and some brokers even quit 
rather than go along. Prudential is the focus of a widening 
criminal inquiry relating to the way customers were treated 
when the firm was suffering enormous losses. 

A few years ago Wall Street brokerage firms could main- 
tain zero balance accounts, funds were deposited only when 
the bank called. This is also known as check kiting. If you and 
I did it we would end up in jail. The brokerage firms got off 
scot-free and made millions a year from the practice. E. F. 
Hutton was the major player in this con game. 

Kissinger Associates, an influence-peddling outfit founded 
by Henry Kissinger to capitalize on his "public service" has 
more than once come into unfavorable criticism but his mem- 
bership of the Trilateral Commission is carefully screened out 
of reports. 

The firm had a field day, for example, in the bankruptcy of 
LTV Corporation where $144 million went to consultants for 
professional services related to the bankruptcy, and Kis- 
singer Associates got the lion's share. The gross overcharging 
was never investigated. 

Similarly, the BCCI affair, a worldwide scandal to which 
Kissinger Associates was linked, managed to evade investi- 
gation in the United States. In England where many thou- 
sands lost deposits, only a lower level manager went to jail. 


Friends of Hillary 

The Clintons have proved themselves remarkably adept at 
promoting their own private interests at public expense — 
and especially in acquiring "friends" in need of Government 
favors who can show a little appreciation. 

The fascinating difference between the Clintons and almost 
any other political family we can think of is the vehement, 
almost breast-beating denunciation of influence peddlers and 
lobbyists. Yet these are the "friends" that come to show their 

The New York Times (March 31,1994) commented caustic- 
ally on "Arkansas, where a thousand or so insiders run things 
in a loosey-goosey way that may look unethical or even illegal 
to outsiders." Apparently, Arkansas morality is, for the 
Clintons, distinct from Washington morality and they cannot 
be accused of irregular conduct because that would discrimin- 
ate against Arkansas. 

The really breathtaking "loosey-goosey" event that bene- 
fited the Clintons was Hillary's ability to take $1,000 as a 
complete novice without collateral and with naked market 
exposure, and convert it into $100,000 in cattle futures — a 
notoriously unstable market. 

Hillary did this in ten months with only $1,000 in a margin 
account (this would normally require at least $10,000) and 
faced disastrous losses any day or hour if the market turned 
sour on her investment. 

Moreover, Hillary went through specific market moves 
with results which are impossible unless her broker was mak- 
ing illegal actions on her behalf. 

Hillary's broker was Robert L. (Red) Bone of the Ray E. 
Friedman & Company brokerage firm of Chicago. In October 
1978 she opened a trading account with $1,000. The very first 
day this investment went to $6,300. There is no documenta- 
tion for the trades, and there is no way that $1,000 would 
cover the amount of cattle futures trades needed to make that 
amount of profit. 


House Speaker Thomas Foley (Trilateral) 

House Speaker Thomas Foley is a disgrace. Ever ready to 
serve fellow Trilateral, Foley should be investigated for 
obstruction of justice. 

Fellow Trilateral Bill Clinton was in trouble in March 1994, 
so Congressman Thomas Foley called a secret 8:00 a.m. meet- 
ing of Democratic congressmen and staff members. It was 
agreed — no meetings or hearings on Whitewater under any 

That put non-Trilateral Congressman John La Falce, Chair- 
man of the Small Business Committee, on the spot. La Falce 
had already started an investigation and requested docu- 
ments from the Small Business Administration. These 
documents had already been sent to the General 
Accounting Office for analysis and Congressman La Falce 
had to install his own minor coverup at the insistence of 
Speaker Foley to block GAO from issuing a report. 

And these are your elected representatives! 

"Poor, Poor Motorola" 

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Motor- 
ola is George M. N. Fisher, a member of the Trilateral 

Motorola under Chairman Trilateralist Fisher is 
notorious for using politics to advance its competitive 
position against both foreign countries and non-Trilateral 
American companies. 

Under fellow Trilateral Bill Clinton, the former Public Rela- 
tions Director for Motorola is the Number Three man in the 
office of the U.S. Trade Representative. And the former head 
of the U.S. Trade Offices Telecommunications Trade Policy 
Division is another Motorola type, today a lobbyist for 
Motorola. There's more. Lionel Olmer, undersecretary of 
Commerce, was four years with Motorola and helped negoti- 
ate the 1986 agreement that led to Motorola's system being 
approved in Japan. 


In 1994 Motorola was dissatisfied with its sales position in 
Japan and used the U.S. Government as a blunt weapon to 
demand more trade. This even infuriated the Wall Street 
Journal, which ran a satirical article, "Poor, poor Motorola." 
Says Wall Street Journal (March 3, 1994): 

The U.S. has publicly accused the Japanese of reneging 
on their promises and throwing up barrier after barrier to 
block Motorola's market access. Nothing could be fur- 
ther from the truth. The history of Motorola in Japan 
reveals a company that has repeatedly used the U.S. 
Government as a battering ram to knock aside Japanese 
regulations and win special favors to accelerate market 

What Wall Street Journal omitted in this lengthy critique of 
Motorola is that both Chairman Fisher of Motorola and Presi- 
dent Bill Clinton are members of the Trilateral Commission, 
which is devoted to such special interest strategies. 

When you talk to these businessmen and suggest that their 
favored treatment is unfair, they respond with a smug, 
"That's how business is done." 



The world has been portrayed by historians as a political 
arena where capitalists and Marxists are rigidly opposed to 
one another and always act in opposition to each other. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. This view is 
another Karl Marx fundamental misinterpretation of the 19th 
century world. Lenin, who followed Marx as tactician of the 
world revolutionary battle, was more perceptive and saw 
capitalists as shortsighted, with many willing to supply the 
rope to hang themselves. 

The Rockefeller group of Wall Street financiers and their 
associated banks, Chase, Manhattan and then Chase Man- 
hattan Bank, have always been in the forefront of capitalists 
willing to aid and succor Marxism. This suicidal policy con- 
tinued under various Presidents who owe election to the 
Rockefeller family, i.e. Carter and Clinton, and the Trilateral 
Commission. A fundamental Trilateral policy is one world 
interdependence, a merging of Marxism and capitalism under 
Trilateral leadership. 

The Rockefeller family has shown notable ability to first 
conceal its support of Marxism before and after World War II 
and then conceal its promotion of Trilateralism in recent dec- 
ades. Historians have been unwitting supporters of the 
Rockefeller family objectives by continuing to advance the 


theoretical dialectic view of an historical antagonism of com- 
munism vs. capitalism as the actual nature of events. The 
true history is a history of cooperation between elite political 
leaders of the West and various Marxist regimes. The West 
has used debt and technology to more or less control these 
ineffective Marxist societies. 

Trilateralism is merely continuation of this global decep- 
tion, and fools historians as well as voters. We are in a period 
where Marxist regimes are allowed to find their own level of 
instability, i.e. effectively to collapse, while new forms of 
world control are substituted. New World Order via Trila- 
teralism is 21st Century Marxism. 

Let's briefly review the history of elitist support of Marx- 
ism and Trilateralism to achieve New World Order. This 
began, by the way, with Cecil Rhodes and Lord Milner in Eng- 
land, founders of the Rhodes scholarships at Oxford. Presi- 
dent Clinton is a Rhodes scholar and understands at least 
part of the picture. (A fascinating research topic, never under- 
taken, would be to explore the contacts between Rhodes, 
Milner and the Fabians in London with Karl Marx, who 
worked most of his life in London in the same period. The 
start point for any interested researcher would be the Scot- 
land Yard files on Karl Marx.) 

Back in the 1920s the Chase National Bank (Chase National 
merged with the Bank of Manhattan to become Chase Man- 
hattan) was deeply involved in building the Soviets — and 
some of this activity was probably illegal and certainly 
against U.S. official policy. 

Both Chase National and Equitable Trust were the leaders 
in the Soviet credit business at a time in the 1920s when the 
State Department had banned credits to Soviet Russia. 
Chase evaded the ban by accepting platinum from Soviet 
mines and advancing credit on the basis of these shipments. 
This was strictly against U.S. policy in the 1920s. 

The president of the American-Russian Chamber of Com- 
merce in the 1920s was Reeve Schley, also a vice-president of 
Chase National. The Chamber was a pressure group which 
sought to change U.S. policy into recognition of the USSR, to 


open up the Russian market for some major American firms 
and banks. To this end, the Chamber used avowed commun- 
ists as agents; for example, a Chamber delegation to Russia in 
1936 was led by Charles Haddell Smith, previously described 
by the State Department as "in the employ of the Soviets and 
a member of the Soviet Peasant International." Members of 
the Chamber included many of the firms opening up the 
China trade today, including Deere & Co., Westinghouse and 
Chase National. 

In the early 1920s the Soviet Union was on the verge of col- 
lapse. The only industrial structure was that of the Tsars. 
Industry was dormant, not destroyed as Soviet propagan- 
dists would have us believe. Foreign firms, mainly American 
and German, came in to start up a dormant Tsarist industry 
and remained to build the Five Year Plans. Why? Because the 
Soviets had destroyed the skilled engineers and managers 
needed to run industry. As Soviet Commissar Krassin 
phrased the problem: "Anyone can help pull down a house; 
there are but a few who can rebuild. In Russia there happened 
to be far fewer than anywhere else. " 

Take the example of Boeing Aircraft (Trilateral T.W. 
Wilson is chairman of the board). In the 1930s Boeing sup- 
plied technical assistance to the growing Soviets. The Soviet 
1-16 fighter was patterned on the Boeing P-26. The Soviet 
TU-4 four-engine bomber was a copy of the Boeing B-29 and 
could only have been reproduced with U.S. assistance. Today 
Boeing is a one-time supplier of aircraft technology to the 
Soviet Union and to Communist China, and remains represen- 
ted on the Trilateral Commission. 

Another example is UOP (Universal Oil Products), now a 
subsidiary of Signal Oil Company. In 1932 UOP had con- 
tracts in the USSR for construction of hydrogenation plants, 
which were of vital importance for military purposes. Up to 
1938 the Soviets were unable to produce 87-94 octane gaso- 
line for aviation use. Hydrogenation plants built by UOP con- 
verted 85 octane gasoline from Saratov and Grozny into 95 
octane avgas. Today, UOP is one of the first American firms 
into China to build the Chinese petrochemical industry — also 


vital for war purposes. 

Yet another example is Ingersoll-Rand, which was repre- 
sented in the Soviet Union by Armand Hammer (former 
chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corporation) as early as 
1918. At that time Armand Hammer's father, Julius Ham- 
mer, was secretary of the Communist Party U.S.A. Ingersoll- 
Rand became a prime seller of technology to the U.S.S.R. In 
1979, Ingersoll-Rand is following the same road with Com- 
munist China. 

We can cite dozens of firms with similar stories. U.S. multi- 
nationals built Soviet power. This has cost the United States 
hundreds of thousands of lives in Korea and Vietnam. Now 
these same multinationals have begun to build Communist 
China under the initial push from Trilateral President Jimmy 

The most important and largest China contracts link to Tri- 
lateralists and their corporate affiliates: The key financial 
backer of Jimmy Carter was Coca-Cola chairman and Trila- 
teral Commissioner J. Paul Austin. 

Coca-Cola will have a soft drink monopoly in China. Maybe 
the Chinese don't yet know what a soft drink tastes like, but 
800 million Chinese is a prime market for the 21st century. 

NOTE: Coca-Cola had been negotiating for ten years before 
1979 with the Chinese, i.e., long before any public surfacing of 
a "new" China policy and presumably while the Chinese aided 
the killing of Americans in Vietnam. 

• A consortium of U.S. oil companies has negotiated devel- 
opment of Chinese petroleum resources. These include Exxon 
(David Rockefeller has dominant interests), Pennzoil, Phillips 
and Union Oil. 

• Former Time Magazine Man-of-the-Year was the Chinese 
Communist leader, Teng Hsiao-Ping. Trilateralist Hedley 
Donovan was editor-in-chief of Time. 

• The first American banks into Communist China were 
Chase Manhattan and the First National Bank of Chicago. 

• Japanese Trilateral are heavily involved in construction 
of Communist China. 

The Carter Administration agreement with Communist 


China, the so-called "normalization" of relations, was an 
extraordinary treaty. All the Chinese terms, including those 
rejected by Presidents Nixon and Ford, were totally accepted 
by the Trilateral negotiations. The negotiators were Trila- 
terals. On the spot in Peking was Leonard Woodcock. In 
Washington was Cyrus Vance and Warren Christopher 
(under-Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 
now Secretary of State). 

There was no pressure to make an agreement at this time 
from the strategic or political viewpoint — so we must look to 
the multinationals for an answer. What do they gain? Was the 
China treaty a duplicate of the early 1920-30 Soviet agree- 
ment? A device to fill multinational order books and expand 
the loan base of international banks? 

The United States was in an extremely strong bargaining 
position. The Chinese needed U.S. technology to survive. 
They needed U.S. credits to buy technology. They needed the 
U.S. as an ally against Russian intrusions over the Chinese 
border; and recognition by the U.S. gave the Chinese Com- 
munists a status they could achieve in no other way. Yet the 
United States capitulated without a whimper, very much 
like the Vietnamese situation when the U.S. got sucked into a 
major war without plan or purpose. Some 50,000 Americans 
were killed. Then we abandoned the battlefield at a time when 
we still had the absolute capability to finish the military job. 
In other words, we did not apparently know why we were in 
Vietnam in the first place. When we were involved, we spent 
billions on war materials and even then lacked the will to use 
those weapons. 

In these instances and others we can find a common thread, 
a common explanation. In science, the answer that most like- 
ly is true, is that answer which fits the largest number of 
cases or events. Is there profit for Wall Street in recognizing 
Communist China? Was there also profit in $300 billion of 
Vietnamese military contracts? In the same way there was 
profit in saving the Soviets and building the Soviet Five Year 

This is the simplest, most plausible answer. It fits most 


cases — and this is where Trilateralism comes in. Trilateral- 
ism is the vehicle by which some banking interests and 
multinationals carry out their policy objectives. 

The Trilateral opening to Communist China also reveals a 
total failure to recognize the human cost of Chinese Com- 
munism. Conservatively, China has murdered 50 million 
Chinese in the 30 years of the Revolution. During one 
particular campaign, "Let a Million Flowers Bloom," Chinese 
Communists lifted their restrictions on freedom of speech and 
action. Many Chinese then took the bait to criticize the 
regime. After a few months of freedom of speech the Chinese 
government promptly arrested the dissidents and used their 
own words as evidence to send them to labor camps, prisons, 
or to their death. 

These big businessmen have a habit of telling each other 
how non-political and smart they are to ignore civil and social 
conditions while concentrating on the business at hand. The 
profit statement is the guide: In brief, an utter, complete 

The dangerous illusions Trilateral hold about Russia and 
China do not therefore stem from ignorance of the facts — 
their actions stem from extreme short-sightedness and 
amorality. The next contract for a multinational has total 
precedence over any nonsense about human rights. While, for 
example, Trilateral J. Paul Austin may want to sell Coca-Cola 
to 800 million Chinese, Austin has no interest in what hap- 
pened to tens of millions of the less fortunate Chinese. 

The outright betrayal of Taiwan in the clear, stark words in 
the official agreement reads as follows: "The government of 
the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese posi- 
tion that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China." 

It is difficult to find any historical parallel where a country 
has acknowledged the slaughter of 50 million people by creat- 
ing an alliance with that country. Possibly the closest parallel 
is Hitler's alliance with Stalin in 1939 after Stalin had 
murdered millions of peasants and Hitler had begun to move 
against his enemies much as the Trilaterals are moving today 
against their own particular enemies. 


At this point we should note the official Trilateral double 
standard on human rights. In brief, for Trilaterals' human 
rights are subordinate to their overall objective of world 
control. Witness the following statement: 

... the support for human rights will have to be balanced 
against other important goals of world order. Some 
Trilateral conceptions of detente with the Soviet Union 
and other communist states tend to conflict with a policy 
of promoting human rights. (Richard N. Cooper, et al; 
Toward a Renovated International System; Trilateral 
Commission, 1977, p. 30) 

Clintons Follow Rockefeller Pro-Marxist Policies 

The Rockefeller founded and directed Trilateral Commission is 
a major force behind the Clinton Administration. . . and Clin- 
ton follows Carter's pro-Marxist policies long after the moral 
and practical usefulness of Marxism has been discredited. 

Interestingly, the Clintons fit the description of "break- 
away capitalists" formulated by Lenin. . . i.e., a group of 
capitalists who see pecuniary advantage in Marxism and so 
support the Marxist cause. Obviously the Clintons have no 
aversion to moneymaking using the political process; 
Hillary's cattle futures trading and Arkansas activities are 
excellent examples. Yet while making capitalistic profit we 
also find Hillary supporting Marxist causes... in exactly the 
same manner as the Rockefeller Chase Bank in the 1920s. 

In the case of the Clintons, the evidence is somewhat more 
serious because, according to recently released FBI docu- 
ments (reprinted below) a Clinton- supported pro-Marxist 
organization, IPS (Institute for Policy Studies) is suspected 
of bank robbery and murder. 

The Clintons have a long standing and close connection 
with IPS in Washington, D.C. This link is well described in 
SECRET (FBI Documents Link Bill and Hillary Clinton to 
Marxist Terrorist Network), Sunset Research Group, 608 
North West Street, No. 236, Wichita, KS 67203; $10. 

Here are some quotes from SECRET (pages 35-40) which 


illustrate the close Clinton-IPS link. Our interpretation is 
somewhat different to the general conservative interpreta- 
tion. We do not see the Clintons as "Marxists." We see them 
as opportunists, amoral and apolitical opportunists, much as 
Lenin viewed the Rockefellers as "breakaway capitalists" 
who support Marxism for personal financial gain. 

We see the Clintons as cultivating and financing IPS for 
future personal gain, not because they had Marxist leanings. 

These revelations of a communist-oriented IPS vet- 
eran (Derek Shearer) directly influencing Clinton, and 
Clinton entrusting the country's future to numerous 
other IPS supporters, is grim indeed and does not bode 
well for the Nation. But there are many more such dis- 
turbing revelations yet to be fathomed. These additional 
evidences — which even more firmly cement Bill Clinton 
into the camp of IPS subversives — come through 
Hillary Clinton. 

If the only links Hillary had to IPS were her close 
friendship with Derek Shearer's sister and her furrow- 
browed fling at Yale, such could appear quite incidental 
But unfortunately, there are additional reams of hard evi- 
dence which indict Hillary as a motivated IPS champion. 
For example, while serving as Director and Chair of the 
Board of Directors of the New World Foundation in 
1987-88, Hillary Clinton praised and gave away signifi- 
cant sums of money to several far left organizations — 
including IPS. 

An especially interesting footnote is: 

Statement by Isabel Letelier read at Rockefeller's New 
York City "Riverside Church" (next to NCC headquar- 
ters), February 2, 1985; per Powell, op. cit., p. 244. See 
section of SECRET on Johnetta Cole for more on the 
Clintons' links to Sandy Pollack. 

Riverside Church is of course linked to Skull & Bones. 

In addition to IPS, Hillary sent money to other pro- 
communist groups which themselves have strong ties to 


IPS — indicating a collaborative attempt for donations 
to serve similar purposes. These included the Committee 
in Support of the People of El Salvador (CISPES — a 
supporter of the Marxist Salvadoran guerrillas), the 
National Lawyers Guild (an officially cited adjunct of the 
Communist Party USA), militant William Kunstler's 
Center for Constitutional Studies, and the terroristic 
Christie Institute. Information on some of the anti- 
American and pro-communist activities of these other 
groups Hillary supported, and some of their relation- 
ships to IPS, are explained below. 

CISPES, Hillary and IPS. The Committee in Support 
of the People of El Salvador (CISPES), which Hillary 
dished out $5,000.00 to, has been properly classified as a 
communist front organization. Formed in 1980 as the 
US branch of a worldwide apparatus supporting Marxist 
FMLN guerrillas in El Salvador, insight into CISPES's 
function with Latin American communist rebels and the 
international communist movement was gained in 1981 
when the personal papers of guerrilla leader Farid 
Handal were captured in El Salvador, (p. 35) 

The National Lawyers Guild, Hillary and IPS. U.S. 
Government investigators have repeatedly condemned 
the NLG (which Hillary lavished $15,000.00 on) as being 
a "Communist front" group. One such official denun- 
ciation charged that the NLG: "Is the foremost legal 
bulwark of the Communist Party [and]its front organiza- 
tions. . . [which] since its inception has never failed to 
rally to the legal defense of the Communist Party and 
individual members thereof, including known espionage 
agents." (page 36) 

At an NLG convention in Austin, Texas the delegates 
sang the Communist "Internationale" anthem, whose 
lyrics include the verse, "Tis the final conflict, let each 
stand his place. The International Soviet shall be the 
Human Race!" 

Hillary gave money to a man who makes speeches be- 


neath the Soviet flag, who cheered the murder of 5 
policemen and who applauds the assassination of 
President Kennedy, (page 37) 

IPS Suspected of Bombings and Murder 

The IPS has long been suspected of revolutionary activities 
and this must have been known to the Clintons — and especially 
to Hillary Clinton, who financed IPS in part. Foundation fund 
disbursers make themselves aware of recipients' backgrounds. 

In 1971 the IPS was under investigation by the FBI "for 
possible involvement of IPS associates in bombing matters" 
(see documents reproduced below) and "a connection has been 
shown between the subjects of a bank robbery-murder and 
some IPS associates." (This related to the murder of a police 
officer on September 23, 1970 during robbery of the State 
Street Bank and Trust Company in Boston.) 

At precisely this time in 1970, Hillary Clinton was associ- 
ated with Robert Borosage, Director of the IPS. . . and ten 
years later we find Hillary still associated with and financing 
IPS Marxist causes. 

If writers on the outside of IPS can determine IPS' revolu- 
tionary violent nature, then so can a Yale lawyer with inside 
contacts at IPS. We have to assume that either Hillary 
Clinton is remarkably naive or was aware of the violent 
nature of the IPS when she directed funds into the IPS and 
related organizations. 

When we consider the FBI documents reproduced below 
with the additional materials in SECRET, this writer has 
serious reservations about Hillary Clinton. Anyone who 
would finance or aid violent activities is unstable and 
certainly not fit to influence public policy in a free country. 

SECRET comments on public reaction to some of these 
revelations as follows: 

On CNN's Capital Gang columnist Mona Charen cited 
Hillary's radicalism but was interrupted by Al Hunt, 
Chief of the Washington Bureau of the Wall Street 
Journal, "It's utter, complete nonsense. You don't have 


anything factual" blurted Hunt Charen replied, "No, it's 
based on her foundation grants to CISPES and William 
Kunstler." Hunt stormed, "No, that is the far-right 
American Spectator kind of neo-fascist hit nonsense." 

After Rush Limbaugh raked Hunt over the coals over 
500 radio stations for that sophomoric name-calling 
spree, a humbled and much smarter Al Hunt scraped out 
an apology, offering that, "It would be outrageous for me 
or anyone else to smear [The American Spectator] with 
that pejorative label." 

Regardless how uneasy the truth makes persons such 
as Al Hunt, Hillary Clinton's political activities are as 
relevant as the political activities of any first lady. If 
Eleanor Roosevelt had (before, after or during WWII) 
channeled money to Japan's military supporters, that 
would have been relevant. If Bess Truman had directed 
monies to North Korea's advocates, that would have 
been relevant. If Jackie Kennedy had aided Castro or if 
""Lady Bird' Johnson had supported the Viet Cong, those 
actions would have been relevant; as would news of 
Barbara Bush funding Sadam Hussein's forces. 

Likewise, Hillary's support for pro-Marxists in Amer- 
ica and for communist insurgents in Nicaragua and El 
Salvador is just as relevant! Especially in light of the 
Clinton campaign rhetoric that he and Hillary would be 
somewhat of a husband-and-wife Presidential team. As 
Hillary declared at the New York Convention, "With me 
you are getting two for the price of one.... Vote for him 
and you will have me also. 

The Trilateral Commission then is a prime Rockefeller front 
to control policy to bring about New World Order. Through 
the Clintons the decades-old policy of aid to Marxist regimes 
and revolutionaries continues. 

This is a long way from the "study group" label claimed by 
the Trilateral Commission. The Commission is a revolution- 
ary organization in opposition to the U.S. Constitution (in its 
own reports) and through its members uses deceit, violence 
and criminal activity to advance its own global political and 


financial interests. 

The delicacy of language and presumed elevated status of 
its members should not disguise either their tenacity or their 
immorality. The soft word, the empty promise and the subtle 
threat have replaced the Marxist red banner and screaming 




When we published the original Trilateral^ Over Wash- 
ington, the Trilateral Commission had no track history. 
Although we wrote the book from the viewpoint that Trila- 
teral Commissioners and especially Chairman David Rocke- 
feller were not telling the entire truth about their objectives, 
there was no way to prove self interested objectives. 

Today, in 1994, we can look at two decades of Trilateral 
actions and determine just how disinterested Trilateral pro- 
posals and policies have been in the light of the extraordinary 
ability to place their members in every Administration. 

First, we now know they have a common philosophy, this 
by their own statements. The radio interview of Trilateral Co- 
ordinator George Franklin Jr., in July 1979 (Radio station 
KLNG, Council Bluffs, Iowa, July 27,1979) highlighted speci- 
fic sensitive areas of discussion that the Commission wants to 

Without doubt the Trilaterals had not considered the possi- 
bility of opposition to their plans and have no damage control 
mechanism in place. They also demonstrate an easy ability to 
avoid, evade, deny and even outright lie when these sensitive 
areas are made public. 

The central role of David Rockefeller is always disguised 
and his influence diluted: 


Commentator: Mr. Sutton? 

SUTTON: Can we go off energy for a while? 

Commentator: Yes. 

SUTTON: I have a question for Mr. Franklin. Who chooses the 
members of the Trilateral Commission? 

FRANKLIN: The Trilateral Commission's Executive Committee. 
SUTTON: Who comprises that committee? 
FRANKLIN: Who is on that committee? 
Sutton: Yes. 

FRANKLIN: Okay. William Coleman, former Secretary of 
Transportation, who is a lawyer; Lane Kirkland, who is 
Secretary -General of the American Federation of Labor; 
Henry Kissinger, who does not need too much identification; 
Bruce McLaury, who is president of the Brookings Institu- 
tion; David Rockefeller; Robert Ingersoll, who was formerly 
Deputy Secretary of State and Ambassador to Japan; I. W. 
Able, who was formerly head of United Steelworkers; and 
William Roth, who is a San Francisco businessman and was 
chief trade negotiator in the previous trade Kennedy round. 

SUTTON: May I ask a question? How many of these have a 
rather intimate business relationship with Mr. Rockefeller? 

FRANKLIN: Henry Kissinger is chairman of Mr. Rockefeller's 
Chase Advisory Committee. 
SUTTON: Coleman? 

FRANKLIN: Coleman, I don't think has any business relation- 
ship with him, he is a lawyer. [In fact, William Coleman is a 
Director of Chase Manhattan Bank, which Franklin has 
already admitted to be controlled by David Rockefeller.] 

SUTTON: Mr. Ingersoll? 

FRANKLIN: Mr. Ingersoll, I don't think has any business 

SUTTON: Isn't he connected with First Chicago? 

FRANKLIN: He is vice chairman of the University of Chicago. 

SUTTON: No, what about the First Bank of Chicago? (First 


Chicago Corp.) 

FRANKLIN: I don't believe that Ingersoll has any relationship 
with banks in Chicago, but I don't know for certain on that. 
[Robert Stephen Ingersoll, before joining the Washington 
"revolving door," was a director of the First National Bank of 
Chicago, a subsidiary of First Chicago Corp. The largest 
single shareholder in First Chicago is David Rockefeller's 
Chase Manhattan Bank. Ingersoll has also been a director of 
Atlantic Richfield and Burlington Northern. Chase Manhat- 
tan is also the largest single stockholder in these two com- 
panies. Thus, Ingersoll has a longstanding relationship with 
Rockefeller interests.] 

Freedom of the press is distasteful to Trilateral, and they 
have good reason to find it distasteful. Here's another seg- 
ment of the same radio interview of Mr. Franklin, in which he 
disclaims knowledge of a Trilateral book recommending 
abridgement of press freedoms, a violation of the First 
Amendment of the Constitution. 

SUTTON: Mr. Franklin, do you believe in freedom of the press 
in the United States? 

FRANKLIN: Definitely, of course. 

SUTTON: Let me quote you from a book, Crisis In Democracy, 
written by Michel Crozier, who is a Trilateral member. 

Franklin: Correct. 

SUTTON: I am quoting from page 35 of his book: "The media 
has thus become an autonomous power. We are now 
witnessing a crucial change with the profession. That is, 
media tends to regulate itself in such a way as to resist the 
pressure from financial or government interests." Does that 
not mean that you want to restrict the press in some way? 

FRANKLIN: I can't quite hear you. 

SUTTON: Let me paraphrase this for you. I think I will be clear 
in my paraphrasing. The Trilateral Commission is unhappy 
with the press because it resists the pressure from financial or 
government interests. That is one of your statements. 


FRANKLIN: NOW, let me say something about our book. 
[NOTE: "our"] The book that we put out, the report, is the 
responsibility of the authors and not of the Commission itself. 
You will find that in the back of a number of them, and that 
book is one of them, that other members of the Commission 
will hear dissenting views, and you will find dissenting views 
in the back of that book on the press question. 

SUTTON: I would like to quote a further statement from the 
same book and leave the question at that point: "The media 
deprives government and to some extent other responsible 
authorities of the time lag and tolerance that make it possible 
to innovate and to experiment responsibly." What the book 
recommends is something like the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission to control the press. This seems to me to be a 
violation of the Constitution. 

FRANKLIN: I would agree with you that we do not want some- 
thing like the Interstate Commerce Commission to control 
the press. 

[Michel Crozer, et al, in Crisis In Democracy, make the 
following statements with reference to the "Interstate Com- 
merce Act and the Sherman Anti-trust Act": 

"Something comparable appears to be now needed with re- 
spect to the media. .. there is also the need to assure to the 
government the right and the ability to withhold information 
at the source" (page 82). 

The authors go on to argue that if journalists do not con- 
form to these new restrictive standards, then "The alternative 
could well be regulation by the government. "] 

SUTTON: I fail to understand why the Trilateral Commission 
would associate itself with such a viewpoint. 

FRANKLIN: As I just mentioned to you, we hired three authors 
for each report. The authors are allowed to say what they 
think is correct. What the Trilateral Commission does is this: 
It says we think this report is worthwhile for the public to see. 
This does not mean that all the members of the Commission 
agree with all the statements in the report and, in fact, a 
majority of them might disagree with certain things. Now, 


where a statement is one that many Commissioners seem to 
disagree with, we then do put in the back a summary of the 
discussion. That book does have a summary of the discussion 
of our meeting which questions various things in the book, in 
the back of it. 

While Mr. Franklin tries to put distance between the Trila- 
teral Commission and individual members, he then admitted 
to a "common philosophy" which appears to suggest they 
have common views on at least fundamental issues. 

SUTTON: Would you say Mr. Franklin that the members of the 
Commission do have a common philosophy? 

FRANKLIN: Yes, I think a common philosophy. I think that all 
of them believe that this world will work better if the principal 
industrial powers consult each other on their policies and try 
to work them out together. This does not mean that they will 
agree on everything. Of course, they won't. But, at least they 
will know what the other countries feel, and why they feel it. 

SUTTON: The Financial Times in London — the editor is Ferdy 
Fisher, a Trilateralist. He fired a long time editorial writer, 
Gordon Tether, because Tether wanted to write articles criti- 
cizing the Trilateral Commission. Do you have any 

FRANKLIN: I didn't know that at all. It sounds terribly 
unlikely, but if you say that it is so, probably it is. [See 
Chapter Seven, "Trilateral Censorship: the case of C. Gordon 
Tether" in Trilaterals Over Washington. Trilaterals see the 
media as the "gatekeeper" and comment as follows: "Their 
main impact is visibility. The only real event is the event that 
is reported as seen. Thus, journalists possess a crucial role as 
gatekeepers of one of the central dimensions of public life. "] 

George Franklin got into further deep water about control 
of the press when asked how it chose writers and whether it 
approved of the chosen writers. 

REES: Yes, Mr. Franklin, I noticed that you were saying that 
the Trilateral Commission takes no responsibility for the use 


of the publisher's imprimatur, but I would be interested to 
know about how you go about selecting your writers to put 
out the various positions. 

FRANKLIN: Well that is a very interesting question. We have a 
meeting with the chairmen. The way the situation is organ- 
ized is this. There are three chairmen, one from each of the 
three areas. Three secretaries, one from each of the three 
areas, and I, have got an intermediate staff job called "coordi- 
nator." Now, the chairmen and secretaries meet with what 
they have jointly, will discuss not only topics they think will 
be useful to have, but also authors for these topics. The topics 
are then discussed by the whole Commission and approved or 
changed slightly. The authors are chosen by members of the 
staff and consultation with the chairmen. 

REES: So, although you do not take responsibility for the fin- 
ished product you are responsible for the selection of the 

FRANKLIN: Very much. No question about that. 

REES: So it does have your imprimatur stamp of approval 
each time? 

FRANKLIN: In that sense. We certainly choose the writers, and 
we choose them because we think they are very good, obvi- 
ously. So far, every single report that has been written by the 
authors has, in fact, been accepted for publication by the 

REES: Then the report on the news media was accepted? 

FRANKLIN: It was accepted, but there was a lot of dis- 
agreement with that. It was felt that it was an important 
statement, with quite a lot of interesting new ideas in it. It 
was also a very strong opposition which was reflected in the 
back of the report in a section, I think it is entitled, 
"Summary of Discussion." 

Whatever Mr. Franklin's evasive statements, common 
sense suggests that Trilateral reports do in fact reflect a com- 
mon philosophy, else the Commission would hardly pay out 
funds for their production. The "do not necessarily agree with 


the authors" is a mere ploy to evade responsibility for 
unwelcome views. 

In one sensitive area, the abnormally low tax rates paid by 
Trilateral banks and firms, George Franklin Jr. was highly 
evasive — and for good reason. Trilateral have been getting 
away with murder, taxwise. 

Here's the Council Bluffs segment on taxation: 

COMMENTATOR: Mr. Sutton, do you have any other questions? 

SUTTON: I have one more question, that goes to a new field 
entirely: taxation. We have established that David Rocke- 
feller is chairman and single most powerful influence in Chase 
Manhattan Bank. Now, do you happen to know the tax rate 
that Chase Manhattan pays in the United States? 

FRANKLIN: I don't know. . . happen to know — it is about 50% 
(fifty percent), 

SUTTON: I will give you some figures. In 1976, Chase Manhat- 
tan Bank's tax rate was precisely zero. I am wondering why, 
if you are so influential politically, why at least you cannot 
pay a tax rate more equivalent to that of the average 
American taxpayer, which is 15%, or 20% or 30%. 

FRANKLIN: I have nothing to do with Chase Manhattan Bank. 
But if the tax rate was zero, it must have been because it had 
very large real estate losses in that year, I think. 

SUTTON: In 1975, it was 3.4%. It is always way under 10%. 

FRANKLIN: Well, that is extremely interesting. It is a new fact 
for me. 

SUTTON: Well, my point is this, that you are willing to guide 
the United States into the future, but apparently you are not 
willing to pay your fair share of the costs. 

COMMENTATOR: YOU are talking about the Commission mem- 
bers as a whole? 

FRANKLIN: I think you will find that the Commission mem- 
bers pay whatever the laws say they are supposed to pay 
under the circumstances. I do not know what the particular 


reason was on Chase. They did have heavy losses; I am not 
familiar enough with their situation to be able to tell to you. 

In brief, our Trilateral friends have been dealing themselves 
favors when it comes to taxation. Trilateral firms are notori- 
ous for the ridiculous low tax rates they appear to pay, zero 
being quite common. And it's all legal because Trilateral poli- 
cies are put into law by Trilateral politicians — so George 
Franklin can truly say that "the Commission members pay 
whatever the laws say they are supposed to pay under the 



Twenty years after founding of the Trilateral Commission we 
can now assess its objectives and intentions. Originally pre- 
sented as a "study group" by interested citizens concerned 
about world problems, we find that the Trilateral Commission 
is anything but this description. 

The first finding is that from the start the Commission has 
reflected extremely narrow segments of the citizenry in each 
constituent country. The Commission is as representative of 
world requirements and world needs as the fox is represen- 
tative of chickens in the hen coop. 

The dominant influence has always been David Rockefeller 
and comparable bankers overseas. The dominant influence is 
that of the international bankers, those who already heavily 
control world directions through control of finance. Further- 
more, David Rockefeller was long time Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most important 
regional bank in this private system. The Federal Reserve 
System is not a public institution, it is a private institution, a 
fact which has to be borne in mind. Federal Reserve distance 
from the prevailing government of the time is deliberate, so 
that the financial system can be controlled in the interests of 
those who own the Federal Reserve. 

Rockefeller has a small executive Committee that invites 


prominent citizens to join the Commission. This perpetuates 
the Rockefeller influence so that new members are at least 
sympathetic to Rockefeller objectives in their private views. 
This in itself would not be objectionable if: 

(1) The Commission was indeed a "study group" and, 

(2) If the Commission exercised the same interest in 
separation from the Federal Government in appoint- 
ments as it does in operation of the Federal Reserve. 

The Trilateral Commission is not a study group. Its studies 
are farmed out to academics who can reflect the Commission 
views. These studies are then the basis for Trilateral discus- 
sion and agreed policies become the policy viewpoints of 
individual members. 

When these members are appointed to the Federal Govern- 
ment, and generally about one-third of the members at any 
time are in the current Administration, then they transmit 
these policies into practice. The conclusion is that the 
Trilateral Commission is a policy-oriented group with the 
power to translate policies into action whatever the general 
citizenry may wish. 

Nowhere do we find any policy determinations in favor of 
individual free enterprise and individual freedom. We find 
many claims that the world is "ungovernable" and that State 
action is needed to bring citizen objectives into line with 
Trilateral ambitions. 

Our chapters and examples of attempts to solve social prob- 
lems through "wars" demonstrates policies that must have a 
hidden objective. The so-called "war on drugs" has not suc- 
ceeded and never could succeed. We find that the Clinton 
"war on drugs" is not far removed from the Reagan-Bush 
"war on drugs" although Clinton promised a new approach. 
It is still a multi-billion military approach to intercept supply, 
a remarkably inefficient procedure. The demand side has 
never been realistically tackled. And as Lt. Colonel "Bo" Gritz 
has pointed out, along with others, the CIA is deeply involved 
in trafficking. So we are left with the thought — is the war on 
supply designed to allow other channels like CIA to control 
supply? This is the only rational conclusion one can make. 


Whatever the Trilateral Commission members may claim, 
our finding is that the objective is a New World Order with 
Trilateralists in control. This would be a planned New World 
Order with no individual freedom and no constitutional pro- 
tections. These so-called "wars" on problems are designed to 
mold the outcome of the problem towards New World Order 
objectives, not to solve the problem. 


is the "think tank" heavily used by the Clinton 
Administration to implement Trilateral policies. Here is 
the FBI summary on IPS. 


aenorandua for Mr. C. D. Brennan 
Be; Institute tor Policy Studies 

1520 Wee Hampshire Avenue , H . W. 

ttshinf ton , D. C. 


Ineffective affor, 
Coaimmiet Party 

by aucb group* as •eethorajuj ud the 

km indicated above, It appears that IPS la I 
not primarily an Institution of learning nor la It an 
ordinary political organ teat ion ; ratber, it la an action- V 
oriented organization of subversive aspect and should be 
investigated by the FBI an a Hew Left subversive organization . 
without Uniting the investigation to contact sith established 


_ 3 - 




as of October 15, 1978. See page 142 for 1993. 
North American Members 

Abel, I.W., Former President, United Steelworkers of America 
Abshire, David M., Chairman, Georgetown University Center for 
Strategic and International Studies 

Ackley, Gardner, Henry Carter Adams University Professor of Political 
Economy, University of Michigan 

Allison, Graham. Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, 

University of Michigan 
Anderson, Doris, Former Editor,Chatelaine Magazine 
Anderson, John B., House of Representatives 
Armstrong, Anne. Former U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain 
Austin, J. Paul. Chairman, The Coca-Cola Company 
Ball, George W., Senior Partner, Lehman Brothers 
Belanger, Michel, President, Provincial Bank of Canada 
Bonner, Robert W., Q.C., Chairman, British Columbia Hydro 
Brademas, John, House of Representatives 
Brimmer, Andrew, President, Brimmer & Company, Inc. 
Brock, III, William E., Chairman, Republican National Committee 

Burns, Arthur F., Senior Adviser, Lazard Freres & Co.; former Chairman 

of Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve Board. 
Calkins, Hugh, Partner, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue 

Castonguay, Claude, President, Fonds Laurentien; Chairman of the 
Board, Imperial Life Assurance Company; former Minister in the 
Quebec Government 

Chaikin, SoL President, International Ladies Garment Workers Union 

Cohen, William S., House of Representatives 

Coleman, William T., Senior Partner, O'Melveny & Meyers; former 

Secretary of Transportation 
Conable, Jr., Barber B., House of Representatives 
Cowles, Jr., John, Chairman, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. 
Cranston, Alan, United States Senate 
Colver, John C, United States Senate 

Curtis, Gerald L., Director, East Asian Institute, Columbia University 


Cutler, Lloyd N., Partner, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 
Desrochers, Louis A., Partner, McCuaig and Desrochers, Edmonton 
Dobell, Peter, Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign 

Trade, Ottawa 
Donovan, Hedley, Editor-in-Chief,Time, Inc. 

Edwards, Claude A., Member, Public Service Staff Relations Board; 
former President, Public Service Alliance of Canada 

Evans, Daniel J., President, The Evergreen State College; former 

Governor of Washington 
Fairweather, Gordon, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights 

Foley, Thomas S., House of Representatives 

Franklin, George S., Coordinator, The Trilateral Commission, former 

Executive Director, Council on Foreign Relations 
Fraser, Donald M., House of Representatives 
Fraser, John Allen, Member of Parliament, Ottawa 
Glenn, Jr., John H, United States Senate 
Harvie, Donald Southam, Deputy Chairman, Petro Canada 
Hawley, Philip M., President, Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 
Heller, Walter W., Regents' Professor of Economics, University of 


Hewitt, William A., Chairman, Deere & Company 

Hills, Carla A., Senior Resident Partner, Latham, Watkins & Hills: 
former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. 

Hockin, Alan. Executive Vice President, Toronto-Dominion Bank 

Hoge, Jr., James F., Chief Editor, Chicago Sun Times 

Houthakker, Hendrik S., Henry Lee Professor of Economics, Harvard 

Hughes, Thomas L., President, Carnegie Endowment for International 

Ingersoll, Robert S., Deputy Chairman of the Board of Trustees, The 

University of Chicago; former Deputy Secretary of State 
Johnson, D. Gale, Provost, The University of Chicago 
Train, Russell E., Former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Trezise, Philip H, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Economic 

Volcker, Paul A., President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
Wallace, Martha R., Executive Director, The Henry Luce Foundation, Inc. 
Ward, Martin J., President, United Association of Journeymen and 

Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United 

States and Canada 

Watts, Glenn E., President, Communications Workers of America 

Weinberger, Caspar W., Vice President and General Counsel, Bechtel 


Weyerhaeuser, George, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Weyerhaeuser Corporation 
Whitman, Marina V. N., Distinguished Public Service Professor of 

Economics, University of Pittsburgh 

Wilson, Carroll L., Mitsui Professor in Problems of Contemporary 
Technology, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management; Director, 
Workshop on Alternative Energy Strategies, MIT 

Wilson, T. A., Chairman of the Board, The Boeing Company 

Former Members in Public Service 

Benson, Lucy Wilson, U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Security 

Blumenthal, W. Michael, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury 
Bowie, Robert R., U.S. Deputy to the Director of Central Intelligence for 
National Intelligence 

Brown, Harold, U.S. Secretary of Defense 

Brzezinski, Zbigniew, U.S. Assistant to the President for National 

Security Affairs 
Carter, Jimmy, President of the United States 
Christopher, Warren, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State 
Cooper, Richard N., U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs 
Gardner, Richard N., U.S. Ambassador to Italy 
Holbrooke, Richard, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs 
Mondale, Walter F., Vice President of the United States 
Owen, Henry, Special Representative of the President for Economic 

Summits; U.S. Ambassador at Large 
Pepin, Jean-Luc, Cochairman, Task Force on Canadian Unity 
Richardson, Elliot L., U.S. Ambassador at Large with Responsibility for 

U.N. Law of the Sea Conference 
Kaiser, Jr., Edgar F., President and Chief Executive Officer, Kaiser 

Resources Ltd. 

Kirby, Michael, President, Institute for Research on Public Policy, 

Kirkland, Lane, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO 
Kissinger, Henry A., Former Secretary of State 

Linowitz, Sol M., Senior Partner, Coudert Brothers; former Ambassador 

to the Organization of American States 
Lord, Winston, President, Council on Foreign Relations 
Macdonald, Donald S., Former Canadian Minister of Finance 
MacLaury, Bruce K, President, The Brookings Institution 


McCracken, Paul W., Edmund Ezra Day Professor of Business 

Administration, University of Michigan 
Miller, Arjay, Dean, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University 
Morgan, Lee L, President, Caterpillar Tractor Company 
Naden, Kenneth D., President, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives 
Packard, David, Chairman, Hewlett-Packard Company 
Parsky, Gerald L., Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; former Assistant 

Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs 
Pearce, William R., Vice President, Cargill Incorporated 
Peterson, Peter G., Chairman, Lehman Brothers 
Reischauer, Edwin O., University Professor and Director of Japan 

Institute, Harvard University; former U.S. Ambassador to Japan 
Robinson, Charles W., Vice Chairman, Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co.; 

former Deputy Secretary of State 
Rockefeller, David, Chairman, The Chase Manhattan Bank, NA. 
Rockefeller, John D., IV, Governor of West Virginia 
Roosa, Robert V., Partner, Brown Bros., Harriman & Company 
Roth, William M., Roth Properties 
Roth, Jr., William V., United States Senate 
Sawhill, John C, President, New York University; former 

Administrator, Federal Energy Administration 
Schacht, Henry B., Chairman, Cummins Engine Inc. 
Scranton, William W., Former Governor of Pennsylvania; former U.S. 

Ambassador to the United Nations 

Sharp, Mitchell, Member of Parliament; former Minister of External 

Shepherd, Jr., Mark, Chairman, Texas Instruments Inc. 

Spencer, Edson W., President and Chief Executive Officer, Honeywell Inc. 

Taft, Jr., Robert, Partner, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister 

Taylor, Arthur R. 

Thompson, James R., Governor of Illinois 
Smith, Gerard C, U.S. Ambassador at Large for Non-Proliferation 

Solomon, Anthony M., U.S. Under-Secretary of the Treasury for 

Monetary Affairs 
Vance, Cyrus R., U.S. Secretary of State 

Warnke, Paul C, Director, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament 

Agency; Chief Disarmament Negotiator 
Young, Andrew, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations 


European Members 

Agnelli, Giovanni, President, FIAT 

Anderson, P. Nyboe, Chief General Manager, Andelsbanken A/S; former 
Danish Minister for Economic Affairs and Trade 

Bassetti, Piero, Chamber of Deputies, Rome 

Berthoin, George, President, European Movement 

Biedenkopf, Kurt H., Deputy Chairman, Christian Democratic Union 

Federal Republic of Germany 

Birrenbach, Kurt, President, German Foreign Policy Association; 

President, Thyssen Stiftung 
Boon, Henrik N., Former Dutch Ambassador to NATO and Italy 
Carli, Guido, President, Confindustria; former Governor, Bank of Italy 
Carrington, Lord, House of Lords, London 
Casanova, Jean-Claude, Professor of Political Science, Institute of 

Political Studies, Paris 
Clercq, Willy de, Chairman, Party for Freedom and Progress, Belgium 

Colombo, Umberto, Director-General, Research & Development Division, 

Compagna, Franceso, Chamber of Deputies, Rome 

Cromer, The Earl of, Advisor to Baring Bros. & Co., Ltd., former British 

Ambassador to the United States 
Danis-Spaak, Antoinette, Member of Chamber of Representatives, 


Debatisse, Michel, Chairman of the French National Farmers Union 
Delouvrier, Paul, Chairman, French Electricity Board 
Desmond, Barry, Member of Irish Parliament and Labour Party Whip 
Dromer, Jean, President Directeur General, Banque Internationale pour 

lAfrique Occidentale 
Duchene, Francois, Director, Sussex European Research Centre, 

University of Sussex 
Eastwood, G., General Secretary, Association of Patternmakers & Allied 

Craftsmen, London 
Ehmke, Horst, Deputy Chairman, Parliamentary Fraction of Social 

Democratic Party, Federal Republic of Germany; former Minister of 


Esteva, Pierre, Administrateur Directeur General, Union des Assurances 
de Paris 

Fibbe, K, Chairman of the Board, Overseas Gas and Electricity 

Company, Rotterdam 
Fisher, M. H., Editor, Financial Times 

Fitzgerald, Garret, Member of Irish Parliament and Leader of Fine Gael 

Party; former Foreign Minister of Ireland 
Foch, Rene. Delegue National aux Questions Internationales du Parti 

des Republicains Independants 


Forte, Franceso, President, Tescon, S.p.A., Rome 

Gaudet, Michel, President, Federation Francaise des Societes 

d' Assurances 
Geddes, Sir Reay, Chairman, Dunlop Holdings, Ltd. 
Glisenti, Giuseppe, President, La Rinascente 
Grierson, Ronald, Director, General Electric Co., Ltd. 
Harlech, Lord, Chairman, Harlech Television; former British 
Ambassador to the United States 

Hartwig, Hans, Chairman, German Association for Wholesale and 

Foreign Trade 
Hayhoe, Bernard, Member of British Parliament 
Houthuys, Jozef P., Chairman, Belgian Confederation of Christian 

Trade Unions 
Huber, Ludwig, President, Bayerische Landesbank 
Jannott, Horst K., Chairman, Board of Directors, Munich Reinsurance 


Janssen, Daniel E., Administrateur Delegue et Directeur General, 

Belgian Chemical Union 
Junghans, Hans-Jurgen, Member of the Bundestag 

Kaiser, Karl, Director, Research Institute of the German Society for 
Foreign Policy 

Keith, Sir Kenneth, Chairman, Rolls Royce Ltd. 

Keswick, Henry, Chairman, Matheson & Company, Ltd. 

Killeen, Michael, Managing Director, Industrial Development Authority 

of the Irish Republic 
Knight, Sir Arthur, Chairman, Courtaulds, Ltd. 
Kohnstamm, Max, Principal, European University Institute, Florence 
Kristoffersen, Erwin, Director, International Division, German 

Federation of Trade Unions 

Lambert, Baron Leon, President du Groupe Bruxelles Lambert, S A. 
Levi, Arrigo, La Stampa, Turin 

Littman, Mark, Deputy Chairman, British Steel Corporation 

Lowenthal, Richard, Professor Emeritus, Free University of Berlin 

MacFarquhar, Roderick, Member of British Parliament 

Malfa, Giorgio La, Chamber of Deputies, Rome 

Marjolin, Robert, Former Vice President of the Commission of the 

European Communities 

Martin, Roger, President, Compagnie Saint-Gobain Pont-a-Mousson 
Maudling, Reginald, Member of British Parliament; former Cabinet 

Merlini, Cesare, Director, Institute for International Affairs, Rome 
Montbrial Thierry de, Professor of Economics, Ecole Polytechnique, 


Munchmeyer, Alwin, Chairman of the Board, Bank Schroder, 

Munchmeyer, Hengst & Co. 
Munthe, Preben, Professor of Economics, Oslo University; Official Chief 

Negotiator in Negotiations between Labor Unions and Industry 
Murphy, Dan, Secretary-General of the Civil Service Executive Union, 


Narjes, Karl-Heinz, Member of the Bundestag 

Neuman, Friedrich A., Chairman, State Association, Industrial 

Employers Societies, North-Rhine Westphalia 

Ortona, Egidio, President, Honeywell Information Systems, Italia; 
former Italian Ambassador to the United States 

Pagezy, Bernard, President Directeur General, Societes d' Assurances 

du Groupe de Paris 
Pilcher, Sir John, Former British Ambassador to Japan 
Rey, Jean, Ministre de 'Etat; former President of the Commission of the 
European Communities 

Ridsdale, Julian, Member of British Parliament; Chairman, Anglo- 
Japanese Parliamentary Group 

Roberts, Sir Frank, Advisory Director, Unilever Ltd.; former British 
Ambassador to Germany and the Soviet Union 

Robinson, Mary T. W., Member of Senate, Irish Republic 

Roll, Lord, Chairman, S. G. Warburg and Co., Ltd. 

Roper, John, Member of British Parliament 

Rose, Francois de, Ambassadeur de France; President Directeur General, 

Societe Nouvelle Pathe Cinema 
Rothschild, Baron Edmond de, President, Compagnie Financiere 

Holding, Paris 
Samkalden, Ivo, Former Mayor of Amsterdam 

Sanness, John C, Director, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs 
Scherpenhuijsen Rom, W. E., Chairman, Board of Directors, 
Nederlandsche Middenstandsbank, N.V. 

Schmidt, Erik lb, Permanent Undersecretary of State, Chairman, Riso 

National Laboratory 
Scholten, Th. M., Chairman of the Board, Robeco Investment Group, 


Schroder, Gerhard, Member of the Bundestag; former Foreign Minister 

of the Federal Republic of Germany 
Seidenfaden, Erik, Directeur de la Fondation Danoise, Institut 

Universitaire International de Paris 
Sensi, Federico, Ambassador of Italy; former Italian Ambassador to 

the Soviet Union 

Seydoux, Roger, Ambassadeur de France; President, Banque de 
Madagascar et des Comores; President, Fondation de France 

Shackleton, Lord, Deputy Chairman, Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation 
Ltd., London 


Shonfield, Sir Andrew, Professor of Economics, European University 
Institute, Florence; former Director, Royal Institute of International 

Smith, J. H., Deputy Chairman, British Gas Corporation 
Sohl, Hans-Gunther, Chairman of the Board, August Thyssen Hutte A.G 
Sommer, Theo, Editor-in-Chief, Die Zeit 
Staunton, Myles, Member of Senate, Irish Republic 
Stony, G. R., St. Antony's College, Oxford (Far East Centre) 
Swire, John A., Chairman, John Swire and Sons, Ltd. 
Tidemand, Otto Grieg, Shipowner; former Norwegian Minister of 
Defense and Minister of Economic Affairs 
Tuke, A. F., Chairman, Barclays Bank International Ltd. 
Vetter, Heinz-Oskar, Chairman, German Federation of Trade Unions 
Vittorelli, Paolo, Member of Italian Parliament 
Warner, Sir Frederick, Director, Guinness Peat Group Ltd.; former 
British Ambassador to Japan 

Wauters, Luc, Chairman, Kredietbank, Brussels 

Wellenstein, Edmund, Former Director General for External Affairs, 
Commission of the European Communities 

Whitaker, Kenneth, Member of Senate, Irish Republic; former Governor 

of the Central Bank of Ireland 
Williams, Alan Lee, Member of British Parliament 
Wolf von Amerongen, Otto, President, Otto Wolff A.G.; President, 

German Federation of Trade and Industry 

Woods, Michael, Member of Irish Parliament 

Zulueta, Sir Philip de, Chairman, Antony Gibbs Holdings Ltd. 

Former Members in Public Service 

Auken, Svend, Minister of Labor, Denmark 

Barre, Raymend, Prime Minister and Finance Minister, French Republic 
Ehrenberg, Herbert, Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, Federal 

Republic of Germany 
Eyskens, Marc, Belgian State Secretary for Budget and Flemish 

Regional Economy 

Lambsdorff, Otto Graf, Minister of Economics, Federal Republic of 

Lecat, Jean-Philippe, Minister of Culture and Communications, French 

Luard, Evan, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the British 

Foreign Office 
Norgaard, Ivar, Danish Minister of Commerce 
O'Kennedy, Michael, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Irish Republic 
Simonet, Henri, Foreign Minister of Belgium 


Stoltenberg, Thorvald, Secretary of State, Norwegian Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs 

Sund, Olaf, Senator for Labor and Social Affairs, Land Government 
of Berlin 

Japanese Members 

Amagi, Isao, President, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; 

former Vice Minister of Education 
Ariyoshi, Yoshiya, Counsellor, Nippon Yusen, K.K. 
Asada, Shizuo, President, Japan Air Lines Company, Ltd. 
Ashihara, Yoshishige, Chairman, Kansai Electric Power Company, In< 
Doko, Toshiwo, President, Japan Federation of Economic Organizatio: 


Eto, Jun, Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology 

Eto, Shinkichi, Professor of International Relations, Tokyo University 

Fujino, Chujiro, Chairman, Mitsubishi Corporation 

Fukushima, Shintaro, President, Kyodo News Service 

Gotoh, Noboru, President, TOKYU Corporation 

Hagiwara, Tom, Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; former 

Ambassador to France 
Hanamura, Nihachiro, Vice President, Japan Federation of Economic 

Organizations (Keidanren) 
Hara, Sumio, Executive Advisor, Bank of Tokyo, Ltd. 
Haraguchi, Yukitaka, Chairman, Central Executive Committee, All 

Japan Federation of Metal Mine Labor Unions 
Hasegawa, Norishige, Chairman, Sumitomo Chemical Company, Ltd. 
Hidaka, Teru, Chairman, Yamaichi Securities Company, Ltd. 
Hirose, Gen, President, Nihon Insurance Co, Ltd. 
Hori, Hideo, President, The Association for Employment Promotion 

of the Handicapped 
Hosomi, Takashi, Advisor, Industrial Bank of Japan, Ltd. 
Hotta, Shozo, Honorary Chairman, Sumitomo Bank, Ltd. 
Hyuga, Hosai, Chairman, Sumitomo Bank, Ltd. 
Ichimura, Shinichi, Professor of Economics, Kyoto University 
Ikeda, Yoshizo, President, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 
Inayama, Yoshihiro, Chairman, Nippon Steel Corporation 
Inouye, Kaoru, Honorary Chairman, Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd. 
Ishikawa, Rokuro, President, Kajima Corporation 
Ishikawa, Tadao, President, Keio University 
Itakura, Joji, President, The Mitsui Bank, Ltd. 
Iwasa, Yoshizane, Chairman, Japan-U.S. Economic Council 


Kaji, Motoo, Professor of Economics, Tokyo University 

Kamiya, Fuji, Professor of International Relations, Keio University 

Kashiwagi, Yusuke, President, Bank of Tokyo, Ltd.; former Special 

Advisor to the Minister of Finance 
Kato, Koichi, Member of the Diet 
Kawai, Ryoichi, President, Komatsu, Ltd. 
Kawamata, Katsuji, Chairman, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. 
Kitaura, Kiichiro, President, Nomura Securities Company, Ltd. 
Kobayashi, Koji, Chairman, Nippon Electric Company, Ltd. 
Komai, Kenichiro, Chairman, Hitachi, Ltd. 

Kondo, Shinichi, Advisor, Mitsubishi Corporation; former Ambassador 
to Canada 

Kono, Fumihiko, Counsellor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. 
Kosaka, Masataka, Professor, Faculty of Law, Kyoto University 
Maki, Fumihiko, Principal Partner, Maki and Associates, Design, 

Planning and Development 
Matsumoto, Shigeharu, Chairman, International House of Japan, Inc. 
Miyado, Daigo, Chairman, The Sanwa Bank, Ltd. 
Morita, Akio, Chairman, SONY Corporation 
Mukaibo, Takashi, President, Tokyo University 
Nagai, Norihiko, President, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines 
Nagai, Yonosuke, Professor of Political Science, Tokyo Institute of 


Nagano, Shigeo, President, Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry 
Nagasue, Eiichi, Member of the Diet 

Nakahara, Nobuyuki, Managing Director, Toa Nenryo Kogyo, K.K. 
Nakamura, Toshio, Chairman, Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd. 
Nakayama, Ichiro, President, Japan Institute of Labor 
Nakayama, Sohei, Counsellor, Industrial Bank of Japan, Ltd. 
Ogata, Okira, Chief News Commentator, Japan Broadcasting 
Corporation (NHK) 

Ohjimi, Yoshihisa, President, Arabian Oil Company, Ltd.; former Vice 

Minister of International Trade and Industry 
Okita, Saburo, Chairman, Japan Economic Research Center 
Saeki, Kiichi, President, Nomura Research Institute 
Sasaki, Kunihiko, Chairman, Fuji Bank, Ltd. 
Shibayama, Yukio, Chairman, Sumitomo Shoji Kaisha, K.K. 
Shibusawa, Masahide, Director, East- West Seminar 
Shimada, Yoshihito, President, Takahashi Foundation; former 

President, Japan Petroleum Development Corporation 

Shoda, Tatsuo, Chairman, The Nippon Credit Bank Ltd. 

Sugiura, Binsuke, Chairman, The Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd. 


Takeuchi, Ryuji, Advisor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs; 

former Ambassador to the United States 
Toyoda, Eiji, President, Toyota Motor Company, Ltd. 
Tozaki, Seild, President, C. Itoh & Co., Ltd. 
Tsutsumi, Seiji, Chairman, Seibu Department Store, Inc. 
Umesao, Tadao, Director, National Museum of Ethnology 
Watanabe, Takesi, Former President, Asian Development Bank 
Yasui, Kizo, Chairman, Toray Industries, Inc. 

Former Members in Public Service 

Miyazawa, Kiichi, Minister of Economic Planning 
Ushiba, Nobuhiko, Minister of External Economic Affairs 


as of July 1, 1993. 

Otto Graf Lambsdorff 
European Chairman 

Paul A. Volcker 
North American Chairman 

Akio Morita 
Japanese Chairman 

Garret Fitzgerald 
European Deputy 

Allan E. Gotlieb 
North American Deputy 

Yoshio Okawara 
Japanese Deputy 

David Rockefeller 

Founder and Honorary Chairman 

Paul Rev ay 
European Director 

Charles B. Heck 

North American Director 

Tadashi Yamamoto 
Japanese Director 

North American Members 

Allaire, Paul A., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Xerox Corporation 
Andreas, Dwayne O., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, 

Archer Daniels Midland Company 
Araskog, Rand V., Chairman, President and Chief Excutive Officer, 

ITT Corporation 

*Bergsten, C. Fred, Director, Institute for International Economics; former 
U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs 

Black, Conrad M., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hollinger Inc., 

Bosley, John, Member, Canadian House of Commons and Chairman of 
the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade; 
former Speaker of the House of Commons 

Bouey, Gerald K., Former Governor of the Bank of Canada 
Brademas, John, President Emeritus, New York University; 

former Member, U.S. House of Representatives 
Brown, Harold, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies; 

former Chairman, Johns Hopkins Foreign Policy Institute, 

Washington, D.C.; former U.S. Secretary of Defense 
*Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International 
Studies; Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Affairs, Paul 
Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins 
University; former U.S. Assistant to the President for National 
Security Affairs 


Burke, James E., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer 

Emeritus, Johnson & Johnson 
Calloway, D. Wayne, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, PepsiCo 
Carlucci, Frank C, Vice Chairman, The Carlyle Group, former U.S. 

Secretary of Defense 
Chafee, John H., Member, United States Senate 
*Coleman, William T. Jr., Senior Partner, O'Melveny & Myers; 
former U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

Corrigan, E. Gerald, President, Federal Reserve Bank of New York 
Curtis, Gerald L., Professor of Political Science, East Asian Institute, 
Columbia University 

Deans, Ian; Chairperson, Public Service Staff Relations Board of Canada, 
Ottawa; former Member, Canadian House of Commons 

Dobell, Peter C, Director, Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and 
Foreign Trade, Ottawa; Vice-President, Institute for Research on 
Public Policy 

Drouin, Marie -Josee, Executive Director, Hudson Institute of Canada, 

Einhorn, Jessica P., Vice President and Treasurer, World Bank 
Erburu, Robert F., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Times 
Mirror Company 

Eyton, Trevor, Member, Canadian Senate; President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Brascan Limited, Toronto 
Feinstein, Dianne, Member, United States Senate; former Mayor of 

San Francisco 

Feldstein, Martin S., President, National Bureau of Economic Research, 
Inc.; George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard University; 
former Chairman, President's Council of Economic Advisors 

Fisher, George M. C, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 
Officer, Motorola, Inc. 

Foley, Thomas S., Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives 
*Fortier, L. Yves, Senior Partner, Ogilvy Renault, Barristers and Solicitors, 
Montreal; former Canadian Ambassador and Permanent Representa- 
tive to the United Nations 

Fresco, Paolo, Vice Chairman of the Board and Executive Officer, 

The General Electric Company, (U.S.A.) 
Friedman, Stephen, Senior Partner & Co-chairman, Goldman, Sachs & Co. 
Gardner, Richard N., Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International 

Organization, Columbia University; Of Counsel, Coudert Brothers; 

former U.S. Ambassador to Italy 

Gerstner, Louis V. Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

International Business Machines 
Goldschmidt, Neil, former Governor of Oregon; former U.S. Secretary 

of Transportation 

Gorman, Joseph T., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, TRW Inc. 


*Gotlieb, Allan E., Chairman, Canada Council; Chairman, Burson- 
Marsteller, Toronto; former Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. 

Graham, Katharine, Chairman of the Board, The Washington Post Co. 

Greenberg, Maurice R., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, American 
International Group, Inc. 

Gutfreund, John H., former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 
Officer, Salomon Inc. 

*Haas, Robert D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Levi Strauss 
& Company 

Hamilton, Lee H., Member, U.S. House of Representatives 

Hennigar, David J., Chairman, Crownx Inc.; Vice-Chairman, Crown Life 

Insurance Co.; Atlantic Regional Director, Burns Fry Limited, 

Halifax, Nova Scotia 
Hormats, Robert D, Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; 

former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and 

Business Affairs 

Houghton, James R., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 

Officer, Corning Incorporated 
Johnson, Samuel C, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. 
Johnson, W. Thomas, President, CNN 

Jordan, Vernon C, Partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld 
Keohane, Nannerl O., President, Duke University, Durham, No. Carolina 
Keough, Donald R., Chairman of the Board, Allen & Co., Inc. 
*Kissinger, Henry A., Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.; former 

U.S. Secretary of State; former U.S. Assistant to the President for 

National Security Affairs 

Labrecque, Thomas G., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The 

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. 
Leach, Jim, Member, U.S. House of Representatives 
Lewis, Flora, Senior Columnist, The New York Times, Paris 
MacLaren, Roy, Member, Canadian House of Commons; former Minister 

of State [Finance]; former Minister of National Revenue 

MacMillan, Whitney, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 
Officer, Cargill, Inc. 

Mazur, Jay, President, International Ladies' Garment Workers Union 
McColl, Jr., Hugh L., President and Chief Executive Officer, Nations- 
Bank Corporation 

*McNamara, Robert S., former President, The World Bank; former 
U.S. Secretary of Defense 

Murray, Allen E., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, 
Mobil Corporation 

Oksenberg, Michel, President, East- West Center, Hawaii 


Owen, Henry, Senior Fellow on leave, Brookings Institution; Member, 
Consultants International Group; former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large 
and Special Representative of the President for Economic Summits 

Putnam, Robert D., Director, Center for International Affairs and 
Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs, Harvard University 

Rangel, Charles B., Member, U.S. House of Representatives 

Raymond, Lee R., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exxon Corp. 

Ridgway, Rozanne, Co-chair, Atlantic Council; former U.S. Assistant 

Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs; former U.S. 

Ambassador to the German Democratic Republic 
Robb, Charles S., Member, United States Senate; former Governor 

of Virginia 
*Rockefeller, David 

Rockefeller, John D. IV, Member, United States Senate; former 

Governor of West Virginia 
*Rosovsky, Henry, Lewis P. & Linda L. Geyser University Professor, 
Harvard University 
Roth, Jr., William V., Member, United States Senate 
Ruckelshaus, William D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 
Browning-Ferris Industries; former Administrator, U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency; former U.S. Deputy Attorney General 
Shanker, Albert, President, American Federation of Teachers 

Shultz, George P., Honorary Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford 
University; former U.S. Secretary of State; former U.S. Secretary 
of the Treasury; former U.S. Secretary of Labor; former Director, 
U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

Smith, Gerard C, former Head, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency and Chief Negotiator of SALT 1 ; former Ambassador-at-Large 
for Non-Proliferation Matters 

Southern, Ronald D„ Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
ATCO Ltd., Calgary; Chairman, Canadian Utilities Ltd., Edmonton 

Stern, Paula, President, The Stern Group, Washington, D.C.; former 

Chairwoman, U.S. International Trade Commission 
Thurow, Lester C, Professor of Economics and Dean, Alfred P. Sloan 

School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Tung, Ko-Yung, Chairman, Global Practice Group, O'Melveny & Myers, 

New York 

Turner, William I.M. Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

Exsultate, Inc., Montreal 
*Volcker, Paul A., Chairman, James D. Wolfensohn Inc., New York; 

Frederick H. Schultz Professor of International Economic Policy, 

Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of Governors, 

U.S. Federal Reserve System 
Watts, Glenn E., President Emeritus, Communications Workers 

of America 

Wendt, Henry, Chairman, Smith Kline Beecham 


Whitman, Marina v.N., Distinguished Visiting Professor of Business 

Administration and Public Policy, The University of Michigan 
Williams, Karen Hastie, Partner,' Crowell & Moring 

Winters, Robert C, Chairman of the Board, The Prudential Insurance 
Co. of America 

Former Members in Public Service 

Allison, Graham, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Plans and Policy 
Babbitt, Bruce, U.S. Secretary of the Interior 
Christopher, Warren; U.S. Secretary of State 

Cisneros, Henry, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
Clinton, Bill, President of the United States 
Crowe, William E. Jr., U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain 
Davis, Lynn E., U.S. Undersecretary of State for International Security 

Deutch, John M., Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition 

Gergen, David, U.S. Assistant to the President for Communications 

Greenspan, Alan, Chairman, Board of Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve 

Jones, James R., U.S. Ambassador to Mexico 

Lord, Winston, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and 

Pacific Affairs 
Murray, Lowell, Government Leader in the Senate 
Nye, Joseph S. Jr., Chairman, National Intelligence Council, Central 

Intelligence Agency 

Rivlin, Alice M., Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget 
Shalala, Donna E., U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services 
Spero, Joan Edelman, U.S. Undersecretry of State for Economic and 
Agricultural Affairs 

Talbott, Strobe, Ambassador-at-Large and Special Adviser to the 
Secretary of State for the New Independent States and Russia 
Tarnoff, Peter, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs 
Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State 

European Members 

Agnelli, Umberto, Vice Chairman, Fiat, Turin 

*Albert, Michel, Assurances Generates de France; former High 

Commissioner of the French Planning Agency 
Armstrong, Lord of Ilminster, Director, The R.T.Z. Corporation, London; 

former Chief Cabinet Secretary to the Prime Minister 
Armenise, Giovanni Auetta, Chairman, Banca Nazionale dellAgricoltura, 



Barre, Raymond, Member of National Assembly; former Prime Minister 
of France 

Bartelds, Hans, Chairman of the Board of Managing Directors, Amev, 

Utrecht; Chairman of the Executive Board of Fortis 
Bassetti, Piero, Chairman, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 

Milan; former Member of Chamber of Deputies 
Bergougnoux, Jean, Director General, French Electricity Board (EDF), 


Berthoin, Georges, International Honorary Chairman, European Move- 
ment; Honorary European Chairman, The Trilateral Commission, Paris 

Biedenkopf, Kurt, Minister President of the Free State of Saxony; 
former Member of the German Bundestag 

Bjerregaard, Ritt, Member of Danish Parliament; Chairman, Social 
Democratic Parliamentary Group; former Minister of Education and 
Minister for Social Affairs 

Boada Vilallonga, Claudio, Honorary Chairman, Banco Hispano- 
Americano, Madrid 

Boiteux, Marcel, Honorary Chairman, French Electricity Board, Paris 

Callebaut, Pierre, Chairman, Amylum, Brussels; former Chairman, 

Belgian Federation of Agricultural and Food Industries 
Cappuzzo, Umberto, Defense Advisor to the Italian Minister of Foreign 
Affairs; Member of the Defense Committee, Italian Senate; 
Former Chief of Staff of the Army, Rome 

*Carmoy, Herve de, Chairman, Banque Industrielle Mobiliere et Privee 
(B.I.M.P.); Advisor to the Chairman, HR Finances, Paris; former 
Chief Executive, Societe Generale de Belgique, Brussels 

Carvajal Urquijo, Jaime, Chairman Iberfomento; Chairman, Ford 
Espana, Madrid 

Casanova, Jean-Claude, Professor of Economics, Institute of Political 

Studies, Paris; Editor, Commentaire 
Cereti, Fausto, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alenia, Rome 
Ceron Ayuso, Jose Luis, Former Spanish Minister of Trade; Chairman 

of ASETA, Madrid 
Clercq, Willy de, Member of the European Parliament; Chairman, 

Commission on Foreign Economic Relations; former Vice President, 

Commission of European Communities, Brussels 

Conroy, Richard, Chairman, Conroy Petroleum; Member of Senate, 
Irish Republic 

Cotta, Alain, Professor of Economics and Management, University 
of Paris 

David-Weill, Michel, Senior Partner, Lazard Freres, Paris & New York 
Davignon, Viscount Etienne, Chairman, Societe Generate de Belgique; 

former Vice President, Commission of the European Communities 
Declercq, Baron Guido, Chairman, FIDISCO, INVESTVO and BENEVENT, 

Brussels; Honorary General Administrator, Kath University, Leuven 


Deflassieux, Jean, Chairman, Banque des Echanges Internationaux; 

Honorary Chairman, Credit Lyonnais, Paris 
Del Turco, Ottaviano, Secretary General, Italian General Confederation 

of Labour (C.G.I.L.), Rome 
Dromer, Jean, Chairman, Financiere Agache, Paris; Chairman, Louis 

Vuitton, Paris; former Chairman, Union des Assurances de Paris (uap) 
Evans, Robert, Chief Executive and Member of the Board, British Gas 

Corporation, London 

*Fanjul, Oscar, Chairman, Repsol; Chairman, Institute National de 

Hidrocarburos, Madrid 
Feo, Julio, Chairman, Consultores de Communication y Direction, 

Madrid; Chairman, Holmes & Marchant 
Ferrer, Carlos, Chairman, Ferrer International; Chairman, Bank of 

Europe, Barcelona; President, unice, Brussels; former Chairman, 

Spanish Employers Confederation 

*FitzGerald, Garret, Former Prime Minister of Ireland 

Fuchs, Michael, President, National Federation of German Wholesale & 

Export Traders, Bonn 

*Garrigues Walker, Antonio, Senior Partner, J & A Garrigues, Madrid 
Gazzoni Frascara, Giuseppe, Chairman and Managing Director, Gazzoni; 

President, Federation of Italian Food Industries, Bologna 
Gilbert, John, Member of British Parliament, London; Former Treasury, 
Transport and Defense Minister; Chairman, John Gilbert & Associates 

*Groothaert, Baron Jacques, Honorary Chairman of the Board, Generale 
de Banque, Brussels; Honorary Ambassador of Belgium 

Hahn, Curt, Member of the Supervisory Board, Volkswagen, Wolfsburg 
Harding, Sir William, Director, Lloyds Bank, London; former British 

Harrowby, Earl of, Chairman, The Private Bank, London 
Herrero de Minon, Miguel, Member, Spanish Parliament 

Hinnekens, Jan, Chairman, Belgian Boerenbond; Member, Board of 

Directors, National Bank of Belgium 
Holm, Niels W., Chairman, Ramboll & Hannemann, Virum; Vice 

Chairman, L. Lauritzen Holding; Director, Teledanmark, Copenhagen 
Hornhues, Karl-Heinz, Member, German Bundestag; Deputy Chairman, 

CDU/CSU Parliamentary Group 
Howell, David, Member, British Parliament and Chairman of the 

Foreign Affairs Committee; former Cabinet Minister 

Imbert, Claude, Editor-in-Chief and Managing Director, Le Point, Paris 

Jagland, Thorbjorn, Secretary General, Norwegian Labour Party 

Janssen, Baron Daniel, Chairman, Executive Committee, Solvay & Co., 

Janssen, Baron Paul-Emmanuel, Chairman of the Board of Directors, 
Generale de Banque, Brussels 


Jochimsen, Reimut, President, Central Bank of the Northrhine- 
Westphalia, Dusseldorf; Member, Central Bank Council of the 
Deutsche Bundesbank 

Joly, Alain, Member of the Board and Managing Director, L'Air 
Liquide, Paris 

Julliard, Jacques, Associate Director, Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris 
Keating, Justin, Former Irish Minister of Industry and Commerce; 

former Leader of the Labour Party in the Senate; former Dean, 

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College, Dublin 
Kiep, Walther Leisler, Treasurer of the Christian Democratic Party and 

Chairman of the "Atlantik Brucke"; Senior Partner, Gradmann & 

Holler, Frankfurt 
Kohnstamm, Max, Former President, European University Institute, 


'Lambsdorff, Count Otto, Chairman, Free Democratic Party; Member, 
German Bundestag; President, Liberal International; former Federal 
Minister of Economics 
Liam Lawlor, Member of Irish Dail 

Lede, Cees van, Member of the Board, Akzo; former President, 

Federation of Netherlands Industry 
Lee Williams, Alan, Director, The British Atlantic Committee; former 

Member, British Parliament 
Leister, Klaus Dieter, Member of the Board, Westdeutsche Landesbank 

Girozentrale, Dusseldorf; former State Secretary, Minister of Defense; 

former Head of the Chancellery of Northrhine Westphalia 
Levi, Arrigo, Political Columnist, Corriere della Sera, Rome 

Levy-Lang, Andre, Chairman of the Board of Management, Compagnie 

Financiere Paribas, Paris 
Leysen, Andre, Chairman, Agfa Gevaert, Antwerp; Chairman, 

Supervisory Board, Hapag Lloyd, Hamburg 
Maas, Cees, Member of the Executive Board of the Internationale 

Nederlanden Group, Amsterdam; former Treasurer, Dutch Government 

MacFarquhar, Roderick, Professor of Government, Harvard University; 

Director, Fairbank Center for East Asian Research; former Member, 

British Parliament 
March Delgado, Carlos, Chairman, Banca March; Vice Chairman, 

Juan March Foundation, Madrid 
Martinet, Gilles, Ambassadeur de France; President, Association for the 

European Cultural Community, Paris 
Martini, Eberhard, President, Association of German Banks; Chairman, 

Bayerische Hypotheken-und Wechsel Bank, Munich 
Mateus, Rui, Chairman, Emaudio International; President, The 

Foundation for International Relations, Lisbon 

Matuschka, Count Albrecht, Chairman, Matuschka Group, Munich 

Maull, Hanns W., Co-Director, German Institute for Foreign Affairs 
(DGAP), Bonn; Professor of International Relations, University of Trier; 


European Representative, Japan Center for International Exchange 
Merlini, Cesare, Chairman, Institute for International Affairs, Rome 
Montbrial, Thierry de, Member de l'lnstitut; Professor, Ecole 

Poly technique; Director, French Institute for International Relations, 


*Monti, Mario, Rector, Bocconi University, Milan 

Munthe, Preben, Professor of Economics, University of Oslo; Counselor, 

Norwegian Nobel Institute 
Murmann, Klaus, Chairman, Federation of German Employers' 

Association (bda), Cologne 
Narjes, Karl-Heinz, Former Vice President, Commission of the European 


Neisser, Heinrich, Member, Austrian Parliament; Chairman, People's 

Party Parliamentary Group (OeVP), Vienna 
Nixon, Sir Edwin, Deputy Chairman, National Westminster Bank, London 
Norrington, Humphrey, Vice Chairman, Barclays Bank, London 

*Ortona, Egidio, Chairman, ispi, Milan; Honorary Chairman, Bull Italia, 
Rome; former Italian Ambassador to the United States 
Owen, Lord, Co-Chairman (EC) of the Steering Committee of the Inter- 
national Conference on former Yugoslavia; former Member, British 
Parliament; former Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary 

* Palliser, Sir Michael, Chairman, Sameul Montagu & Co.; former Permanent 
Undersecretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London 

Perry, Michael, Chairman, Unilever, London 

Pierer, Heinrich von, Chairman, Siemens, Munich 

Pinho, Ilidio de, Chairman, COLEP, Lisbon 

Pinto Balsemao, Francisco, Member, Portuguese Parliament; former 

Prime Minister 
Ratti, Giuseppe, Member of the Board, Coe-Clerici, Genoa 
Rippon of Hexham, Lord, President, invesco mim.; Chairman, Unichem, 

London; Former Chancellor Duchy of Lancaster 
Rocca, Gianfelice, Chairman of Techint, Milano 
Roll of Ipsden, Lord, President, S.G Warburg Group, London 
Romano, Sergio, Editorialist, La Stampa; former Italian Ambassador to 

USSR, Milan 

Roper, John, Director, Institute for Security Studies, Western European 

Union; former Member of British Parliament 
Rose, Francois de, Ambassadeur de France; former Permanent 

Representative to NATO 

Ruding, H. Onno, Vice Chairman Citicorp/Citibank, New York; 

former Dutch Minister of Finance 
Ruggiero, Renato, Member of the Board of Directors in charge of 

International Relations, Fiat, Turin; former Italian Minister of 

Foreign Trade 


Sarasqueta, Antxon, President, Multimedia Capital; Editor, Echos, 

*Scherpenhuijsen Rom, Willem, Former Chairman, Internationale 

Nederlanden Group, Amsterdam 
Schlehnann, Jorgen, Columnist, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, Denmark 
*Schmidt-Chiari, Guido, Chairman, Creditanstalt Bankverein, Vienna 
Schmitz, Ronaldo, Member of the Board of Managing Directors, 

Deutsche Bank, Frankfurt 
Schwartz, Pedro, Executive Vice President, National Economic Research 

Associates, Madrid; Member of the Board of Directors, Iberagentes 

Brokers; Professor of Economics, Madrid University 
Segurado, Jose, Chairman, Jasinas, Madrid; Special Advisor to the 

Chairman, Banesto; former Member, Spanish Parliament 

*Shore, Peter, Member of British Parliament 
Siglienti, Sergio, Chairman, Banca Commerciale Italiana, Milan 
Silvestri, Umberto, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, 

STET, Rome 

Simonet, Henri, Member, Belgian Senate; former Belgian Minister for 
Foreign Affairs and Vice President of the Commission of the 
European Communities, Brussels 
*Staunton, Myles, Member of Senate, Irish Republic 

Sutherland, Peter, Chairman, Allied Irish Bank Group, Dublin; former 
Member of the European Commission; former Attorney General of 

Svanholm, Poul Johan, President and Group Chief Executive Officer, 

Carslberg, Copenhagen 
Tameron, Marques de, Director, Institute de Cuestiones Internationales 

y Politica Exterior (incipe), Madrid 
Tapsell, Sir Peter, Member of British Parliament 
Taylor, Geoffrey W., Chairman, Daiwa Europe Bank; former Group 

Chief Executive, Midland Bank, London 
Thierry, Jacques, Chairman of the Board, Banque Bruxelles Lambert; 

Chairman of the Board, Artois Piedboeuf Interbrew, Brussels 

Thorn, Gaston, Chairman, Banque Internationale a Luxembourg; 
former President, Commission of the European Communities 

*Thygesen, Niels, Professor of Economics, Economics Institute, 

Copenhagen University 

Tidbury, Sir Charles, Member, Board of Directors, Whitbread & Co. 

*Tidemand, Otto Gried, Shipowner, Oslo; former Norwegian Minister of 

Defense and Minister of Economic Affairs 
Van Traa, Maarten, Member of Dutch Parliament; Foreign Affairs 

Spokesman, Labour Party, Amsterdam 
* Vasco de Mello, Antonio, Chairman, Sociedade de Reparacao e 

Montagem de Equipamentos Industrials, Lisbon; former Member, 

Portuguese Parliament 


Verzetnitsch, Friedrich, Member, Austrian Parliament (SPOe); President, 

Austrian Federation of Trade Unions, Vienna 
Vila Marsans, Jose, Chairman, Rhone Poulenc Fibras, Barcelona; 

Director, Banco Central, Madrid 
Vittorelli, Paolo B., Chairman, Instituto Studi Ricerche Defesa (ISTRID), 

Rome; former Member of Italian Parliament 

Voigt, Karsten D., Member of the German Bundestag; Spokesman on 

Foreign Affairs of the SPD Parliamentary Group 
Voorhoeve, Joris, Director, Netherlands Institute for International 
Relations, The Hague 
Vuursteen, Karel, Chairman, Executive Board, Heineken, Amsterdam 
*Wallenberg, Peter, First Vice Chairman, Skandinaviska Ensilka Banken, 

Weinberg, Serge, Chairman, Comagnie de Distribution de Materiel 
Electrique; Member of the Board and Director General, Pinault 
Group, Paris 

*Wieczorek, Norbert, Member, German Bundestag; Spokesperson on 
International Economic and Monetary Afairs, SPD Parliamentary 

*Wolff von Amerongen, Otto, Chairman, East-West Trade Committee; 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Otto Wolff Industrieberatung 
und Beteiligung 

Ybarra, Emilio, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Banco Bilbao- 

Vizcaya, Madrid 
Zwan, Arie van der, Chairman, World Software Group, The Hague 

Former Members in Public Service 

Boniver, Margherita, Minister of Tourism, Italy 

Braga de Macedo, Jorge, Minister of Finance, Portugal 

Colombo, Umberto, Minister of Universities and Scientific Research, Italy 

Hoist, Johan Jorgen, Minister of Defense, Norway 

Savona, Paolo, Minister of Industry, Italy 

Stoltenberg, Thorvald, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway 

Veil, Simone, Minister of State for Social, Health and Urban Affairs, France 

Japanese Members 

Amaya, Naohiro, Executive Director, Dentsu Institute for Human Studies 
Chino, Yoshitoki, Honorary Chairman, Daiwa Securities, Co. Ltd. 
* Ejiri, Koichiro, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Executive 
Director, Mitsui & Co., Ltd. 

Fukukawa, Shinji, Executive Vice President, Kobe Steel Co., Ltd. 
Funabashi, Yoichi, Columnist, The Asahi Shimbun 


*Gyohten, Toyoo, Chairman, The Bank of Tokyo; former Vice Minister 
of Finance for International Affairs 
Hasegawa, Norishige, Director and Counsellor, Sumitomo Chemical 
Company Ltd. 

Hashida, Taizo, Counsellor, Fuji Bank, Ltd. 
Hata, Tsutomu, Member of the Diet; former Minister of Finance 
Hirose, Gen, Honorary Chairman, Nippon Life Insurance Company, Ltd. 
Horie, Tetsuya, President, The Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd. 

*Hosomi, Takashi, Chairman, NLI Research Institute; former Chairman, 
The Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund 
Ichimura, Shin'ichi, Vice-Chancellor and Director, Institute of 
International Relations, Osaka International University 

Inouye, Kaoru, Honorary Chairman, Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank, Ltd. 
Ishikawa, Rokuro, Chairman, Kajima Corporation 
Kishikawa, Takeru, Chairman, Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. 
Ito, Tadashi, Chairman, Sumitomo Corporation 

Kaji, Motoo, Vice President,The University of the Air; Professor 

Emeritus, University of Tokyo 
Kakizawa, Koji, Member of the Diet; Parliamentary Vice-Minister for 

Foreign Affairs 

Kamiya, Fuji, Professor, Toyo-Eiwa Women's University; Visiting 

Professor, Keio University 
Kamiya, Ken'icbi, Director and Counsellor, The Sakura Bank, Ltd. 
Kato, Koichi, Member of the Diet; former Chief Cabinet Secretary 
Kawakatsu, Kenji, Chairman, Sanwa Band, Ltd. 
Kitamura, Toshi, Executive Vice-President and Director, Hitachi, Ltd. 
Kobayashi, Shoichiro, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Kansai 

Electric Power Company, Ltd. 

*Kobayashi, Yotaro, Chairman, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. 

Kojima, Akira, Senior Editor and International Editor, The Nihon 
Keizai Shimbun 
Kosai, Yutaka, President, Japan Center for Economic Research 
Kume, Yutaka, Chairman, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd. 
Shonosuke, Maeda, President, Toray Industries, Inc. 
*Makihara, Minora, President, Mitsubishi Corporation 
Matsukawa, Michiya, Senior Advisor to the President, Nikko 
Securities Co. Ltd. 
Matsuoka, Seiji, President, The Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. 
Miyazaki, Isamu, Chairman, Daiwa Institute of Research, Ltd. 
Miyoshi, Masaya, President and Director General, Keidanren 
(Japan Federation of Economic Organizations) 
Mogi, Yuzaburo, Executive Managing Director, Kikkoman Corporation 
*Morita, Akio, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Sony Corporation 


Motono, Moriyuki, Advisor to the Board, Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. 

Mukaibo, Takashi, Chairman, Japan Atomic Industiral Forum; former 
President, University of Tokyo 
Murase, Jiro, Mnaging Partner, Marks & Murase 
*Murofushi, Minora, President, Itochu Corporation 
Nagai, Yonosuke, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University 
Nagasue, Eiichi, Member of the Diet 
Nakahara, Nobuyuki, President, Tonen Corporation 
Nakamura, Kaneo, Counsellor, The Industrial Bank of Japan, Ltd. 
Nakamur, Toshio, Counsellor, Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd. 

Nishihara, Masashi, Professor of International Relations, National 
Defense Academy 

Noguchi, Teruo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Koa Oil Co., Ltd. 
Ogasawara, Toshiaki, Publisher-Chairman,The Japan Times, Ltd.; 
President, Nifeo Inc. 

Ogata, Shijuro, Senior Advisor, Yamaichi Securities Co., Ltd., Tokyo 

Okanu, Mitsuyoshi, President, The Suraga Bank, Ltd. 
*Okawara, Yoshio, Executive Advisor, Keidanren (Japan Federation of 
Economic Organizations); former Ambassador to the United States 

Okumura, Ariyoshi, President and Chief Executive, IBJW Asset 
Management Co., Ltd. 

Saba, Shoichi, Advisor to the Board, Toshiba Corporation Ltd. 
*Saeki, Kiichi, Deputy Chairman, International Institute for Global Peace 
Saito, Yutaka, President, Nippon Steel Corporation 
Sato, Seizaburo, Professor, Keio University; Acting Director, 
International Institute for Global Peace 

Shibusawa, Masahide, Director, East-West Seminar 

Shiina, Motoo, Member of the Diet; President, The Policy Study Group 

Shiina, Takeo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, IBM Japan, Ltd. 

Shimokobe, Atsushi, Chairman, The Tokio Marine Research Institute 

Suzuki, Tetsuo, President, HOYA Corporation 

Takagi, Tsuyoshi, General Secretary; ZENSEN (The Japanese Textile, 
Garment, Chemical, Mercantile and Allied Industry Workers' Unions) 

Tanaka, Akihiko, Associate Professor, Institute of Oriental Culture, 
University of Tokyo 

Tatsumi, Sotoo, President, Sumitomo Bank, Ltd. 

Tomabechi, Toshihiro, Auditor, Toppan Moore Co., Ltd. 

Toyoda, Eiji, Honorary Chairman, Toyota Motor Corporation 

Toyonaga, Keiya, Senior Managing Director, Matsushita Electric 

Industrial Co., Ltd. 
Tsutsumi, Seiji, Chairman, Saison Corporation 

Uetani, Hisamitsu, Chairman Emeritus, Yamaichi Securities Co., Ltd. 
Umemura, Shoji, Chairman of the Board, Nikko Securities Co., Ltd. 


Washio, Etsuya, President, Japan Federation of Steel Workers' Union 
Watanabe, Fumio, Counsellor, Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. 

Watanabe, Takeshi, Chairman, The Non-Life Insurance Institute of 

Japan; former President, Asian Development Bank 
Yamamoto, Tadashi, President, Japan Center for International Exchange 
Yamashita, Isamu, Former Japanese Chairman, The Trilateral Commission 

Chairman, East Japan Railway Company; Senior Advisor, Mitsui 

Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. 

Yashiro, Masamoto, Country Corporate Officer, Citibank NA 

Yoshino, Bunroku, Chairman, Institute for International Economic 
Studies; former Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany 

Former Members in Public Service 
Miyazawa, Kiichi, Prime Minister 

Ogata, Sadako, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

*Executive Committee 




Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz, U.S.A. (Ret) 

U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs Committee 

International Narcotics Control Task Force 
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 
Tuesday, 30 June 1987 

Nine hundred tons of heroin & opium will enter the free 
world from Southeast Asia's "Golden Triangle" this year. 
The reason is because U.S. taxpayer dollars and American equip- 
ment have been used to construct a new road that will allow 
narcotics to pour out of General Khun Sa's Shan Territories rather 
than trickle out by horse and mule as has been the case until the 
beginning of this year. 

Last year 600 tons of Opiates trafficked from this area. Press 
reports included as part of this statement argue that it is logistically 
impossible to increase the output to 900 tons. The new road capable 
of easily handling 10-ton truck convoys signal not only the capa- 
bility, but the reality. The disappointing fact is that this new artery 
was constructed by the Thai Government using money, manpower, 
time and materials furnished by our drug suppression funds. 

Moreover, there are serious implications that elements within the 
U.S. Government are Khun Sa's biggest customers. The facts are 
that for 15 years U.S. taxpayers through legislative bodies like this 
committee and executive agencies such as have testified here today, 
have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into drug suppression 
programs within Thailand and Burma which have done nothing but 
nourish the flow of narcotics from Asia into the United States. The 
proof is statistically clear. Fifteen years ago the flow of Opiates was 
60 tons; this year it will approach or exceed 900 tons. The reasons, 
while multi-faceted, boil down to one word, "money." 


Certain high level Thai and Burmese officials are packing their 
pockets with U.S. -supplied drug suppression funds, political payoffs, 
and other spinoff profits like the thousands of Teak trees felled 
during the Khun Sa road effort. Khun Sa has no outlet for teak, but 
it is a protected and highly valued commodity in Thailand. More 
shameful are the serious allegations raised by General Khun Sa and 
his staff that corrupt U.S. officials allow this travesty and in certain 
cases are directly involved. 

After a meeting with General Khun Sa and others, I am convinced 
that a secret combination exists today within the U.S. Government 
that was officially germinated during the Nixon- Vietnam years and 
has, through illicit drug profits, propagated itself today into a self- 
serving righteous monster of global proportions. I believe Ed Wilson 
was a member of this combination and that his activities represent 
only one of many tentacles. I believe the Contra-Iran situation is 
merely another visible lesion that has emerged from this extra- 
governmental organism. 

I say "would be righteous" because those within this secret com- 
bination I believe honestly think they are serving America by 
offering an established model of sabotage, subversion, and assas- 
sination to areas threatened by communism. They are in existence 
because normal government process is too cumbersome, time- 
consuming and ofttimes impotent. These persons who are intelligent 
and well seeded in our governmental structure think they are 
smarter than our elected officials and can expedite accomplishment 
of national objectives. They have funded their efforts through drug 
trafficking because of a 1960s mindset that anyone who would use 
opiates is animalistic and the U.S.A. doesn't really care about them. 
They began their drug dealing in Southeast Asia as a means to fund 
the secret war in Laos and Cambodia that Congress was officially 
unaware of. Besides my personal experiences, all of these conclusions 
are spelled out in the book, The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. 

I have good reason to believe that after President Nixon got the 
U.S. out of Vietnam "with honor," while bringing home "all the 
POWs" in 1973 that either with his concurrence, or on the initiative 
of those "Best and Brightest" included within the "President's 40," 
the war continued to be fought through Project Phoenix. The in- 
siders knew the North Vietnamese would not abide by the tri-accord 
and continue to consolidate their position in Vietnam, Laos, and 
Cambodia. Since the war was over there was no Congressional fund- 
ing and homegrown trafficking offered the most expedient solution. 


Ideally the communist takeover in 1975 would fall like a house of 
cards since the infrastructure would be eliminated by extreme 
prejudice through the Phoenix operation. Even so, an estimated 
150,000 nonmilitary persons were terminated; the program failed to 
meet the expectations of those in charge. 

Next, I believe the Phoenix model was moved to help stabilize a 
toppling Shah who happened to be close to the Administration — 
and to people in the secret combination society, many of whom held 
high positions within the Executive Branch. The Shah fell. By this 
time the model was self-perpetuating. 

Rather than shut down after failing in Iran, there was a refocus on 
the building communist threat in Central America. The Contra-Iran- 
Oliver North-White House disclosures are only protrusions that 
have become visible because of the extent and intensity of this para- 
government organization. Even as these hearings are underway, 
representatives of this secret combination are at work in the 
Philippines, offering "anti-communist solutions" to that struggling 
democracy. I believe that. 

As years and changing administrations have gradually thinned 
the society's active duty status within the U.S. Government, I 
believe those who still steer the society have become more self- 
serving, making huge personal profits under the guise of fighting 
worldwide communism. Further, I believe they are maximizing their 
influence to protect those of the brotherhood who still hold active 
office in the government. 

I have been told for years that U.S. POWs would never be allowed 
to return because they were directly related to illegal drug traf- 
ficking by U.S. officials. Until May of 1987, I thought this absurd. 
Now, after eight years in the POW-Southeast Asian arena, I clearly 
can see what was hidden except to those more sensitive to power 
politics than myself. The reason we have met the enemy and he is 
U.S. in our efforts to return POWs while they are still alive is simple. 
When POWs are returned the first demand by the American people 
will be to examine those within the government responsible for their 
return. America will want to know why these individuals failed in 
their official capacities; why the burden fell on the private sector, and 
what took so long if the POW issue is truly "Top National Priority" 
as designated by President Reagan. Upon investigation it will be 
revealed that responsible officials were more interested in interested in 

their secret society than accounting for our POW and MIA. 
The fact is that all of the Heroin and Opiates could be shut off at 


the Golden Triangle if America's responsible elected and ap- 
pointed officials would do their job. General Khun Sa is recognized 
as the drug kingpin and controls the Golden Triangle with a well- 
disciplined army of 40,000 Shan soldiers. He has stated to me 
before three other American witnesses on videotape that he great- 
ly desires to stop the drug trafficking, but we won't let him. He has 
promised that if we will give him any economic alternative, he will 
not just stem, but stop the flow of narcotics through his areas of 
control. He has said for example that for one-tenth the money we 
now give the Burmese for drug suppression turned into economic 
aid and crop substitution, he will use his force to enforce what we 
cannot and have not. In addition, Khun Sa has stipulated that the 
Burmese must be stopped from using the 12 Bell Helicopters and 
fixed wing aircraft given them by the U.S. to spray the Shan State 
people, animals, food and water with Agent Orange and herbicides. 
All that I have presented thus far is backed up by written and 
recorded documents made available to the Committee. 

It has been reported to me by committee personnel that Khun Sa 
has made these offers before. They say the CIA has expressed 
doubt and mistrust that Khun Sa will carry out his part of the 
bargain. I and three other Americans have met with Khun Sa. We 
believe him to be sincere. Certainly in view of the dismal failure of 
the CIA and DEA to slow, stop or even deter the flood of drugs 
from the Golden Triangle, it seems that a change in dynamics is in 
order. Especially since Khun Sa has directly implicated persons 
within the CIA as some of his best customers. The videotapes 
show testimony of a frustrated medical doctor who, under orders 
from Khun Sa, did everything from offer radio links to Khun Sa's 
headquarters to present a horse that might be used to alert DEA 
of drug movements. The low level agents supported these initi- 
atives, but in every case they were rejected at DEA headquarter 

I have strived at the invitation of the Executive Branch for eight 
years to convince political skeptics that American POWs are alive 
in the hands of Communist forces in Laos and Vietnam. I abhor 
drugs and dopes that are users, yet in the past two weeks I've been 
told by committee staff and others that "federal sources" and a 
Los Angeles State Department employee have said that I am "a 
drug trafficker," and I will be in prison before July 4th. I know this 
level of federal employee would never make such slanderous state- 
ments unless encouraged by higher-ups. While following the 


classic model of "deny-defame-divert," it is disappointing that law 
enforcement agencies would reveal such lowlife practices as direct- 
ly as they have, and then avoid comment when confronted. 

I have tried in every way to cooperate with the committee and 
its membership. I've furnished videotapes, only to be informed 
that the chairman has blocked their distribution. I've supplied the 
Suchesk letter to Vice President Bush, and requested a written 
transcript of the file from which Khun Sa's secretary read from. I 
received a letter in the mail last week. It was from Khun Sa. The 
stapled and sealed envelope had been opened. Inside, the pamph- 
let, which had also been stapled shut, had been opened and the con- 
tents removed. I had asked Khun Sa to translate his record; sign it 
himself with two additional witnesses. I was assured this docu- 
ment was part of the opened package. I have requested my con- 
tacts furnish me with a FAX of their copy. It serves to supplement 
in writing the verbal and video accounts. 

I'm disillusioned that this committee, which represents the in- 
terest of 240 million Americans in controlling illegal drug traffick- 
ing, would take such a negative and skeptical position on such a 
critical issue as Khun Sa's proposal and my deliverance of the 
information he gave us. I've been told that I must "sell my case" 
to you. Facts are, I am a citizen who has been twice to see a 
warlord who is recognized as the world's most powerful Heroin 
kingpin. This person has shown statistically that our 15-year old 
drug suppression program is, at best, "dumb" by anyone's stan- 
dards. At best we have millions of U.S. tax dollars being mishan- 
dled; one recipient has made use of U.S. assets to build a major 
road, and secures that road from outside infiltration; 900 tons of 
opiates entering the free world; rampant corruption of allied of- 
ficials. At worst, in addition to the best case, we have officials 
within the USG who won't, as Khun Sa says, let him get out of the 
drug business, because they are his biggest buyers. 

Your business is representing American interest in drug control. 
You greatly influence how our tax dollars are used and how well 
the enforcement agencies do their job. My business is bringing 
home POWs while they are still alive. Neither one of us has been 
able to make much headway because I'm convinced there are per- 
sons within the government that are opposing us both. If POWs 
came home, the resulting investigation will expose their drug 
involvement; if the drugs are stopped, their source of income dries 
up. I agree that communism threatens the liberty of free people 


everywhere, but in my opinion drugs are even a bigger and more 
immediate threat. To fuel these self-righteous freedom fighters 
with drug money is to steal, cheat, and mislead every American 
taxpayer, and circumnavigate the greatest governmental system 
in the world. While it may appear slow, and at times fickle and 
indecisive, still ours is the greatest government in the world. There 
aren't boatloads of Americans headed for the Soviet Union. I 
believe our system was divinely inspired. I believe it will work 
despite any shortcomings.